HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-14 Ordinance 4433• •
ORDINANCE NO .. 443l
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION 1.
A. A development agreement has been requested of the City
for the approval of development of certain real property
collectively known as Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects,
and more particularly described in the subject Development
Agreement.
B. The City Council finds and determines that notice of
intention to consider the development agreement has been given
pursuant to Government Code section 65867.
C~ Tne Planning Commission and the City Council have each
conducted a public hearing on the Development Agreement, amendments
to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance/ a
Tentative Map, and various related land use approvals.
D. The City Council has reviewed the contents of the
Environmental Impact Report (~EIR") prepared for the Projects, and
all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all
test~ony, written and oral, presented on the matter.
E. The City Council finds and determines that the
development agreement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of
the City of Palo Alto, as amended. The City Council has
specifically considered the regional welfare and the impacts of the
development agreement upon the regional welfare. The City Council
finds and determines that the benefits of the project set forth in
the development agreement, and findings including statements of
overriding consideration for each project, establish the reasonable
relationship of the Projects and of the approvals to the regional
welfare.
SECTION 2.. The City Council hereby approves the
Development Agreement between the Board of Trustees of the Leland
Stanford Junior University and the City of Palo Alto, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and authorizes the Mayor
to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
1
970711 lac 003180 l
• •
SBCTXQM l· The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of
the development agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder
not later than ten (10) days after it becomes effective.
SSCTION 4. The City Council adopts this ordinance in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( .. CEQA")
findings adopted by Resolution No. 7685.
SICAION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the
thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption but, if submitted to a
referendum by the Council on its own motion, or by a certified
sufficient petition of the electorate, pursuant to Article IV,
section 3 of the Charter, it shall be suspended and inoperative
unless and until it is approved by the voters. If an initiative
appearing on the same ballot with this ordinance amends one or more
of the same provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or
Zoning Ordinance as this ordinance or any actions incorporated into
the development agreementi and both this ordinance and the
initiative are approved, but the ordinance receives fewer votes
than the initiative: .. 9. direct and irreconcilable conflict with the
entirety of this ordinance shall be deemed to exist, and no part of
this ordiP~nce or any actions incorporated into the development
agreement shall become finally effective.
If an initiative appearing on the same ballot witn this
ordinance amends one or more of the same provisions of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance as this ordinance or
any act ions incorporated into the devtalopment agreement, and both
this ordir~1ce and the initiative are approved, but the initiative
receives fewer votes than this ordinance, a direct, irreconcilable
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
2
910721 111;00)1101
• •
conflict with the entirety of the initiative shall be deemed to
exist, and no part of the initiative shall become effective.
INTRODUCED: June 30, 1997
PASSED: July 14, 1997
AYBS: ANDERSEN, BAJCINS~ HUBER, KNISS, MCCOWN, ROSENBAUM,
SCHNEIDER, WHEELER
NOBS:
ABSTENTIONS:
FAZZINO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/J -I ' :; ~ U{-A...A~ f d· '---"'CJ .. J.-2--
Senior Asst. City Attorney
'MI ~IS CDfiAEO roBE All
OIOfNAN!'E Ddi.Y NSRD BY TH£ COUNCIL
OJ 1M£ CiTY 0~ PALO M.tO MD
THEREAr fER POSTEQ ~-~COUNCIL
OtAM!lERS ON V"~ 1 (wmtiN 11
DAYS Of 6TS PASSAGE)
•• cattifyCor dedlnt) _... ,_....,
·~---··=·· ....
....
~M&e ~~ .......... -~ ......
9'10721 lac 003180 1
3
/
Director of Plann
Community Environment
• •
Development Agreement
...
•
This document is recorded
for the benefit of the City
of Palo Alto and is entitled
to be recorded free of charge
in accordance with Section 6103
of the Government Code .
After Recordation, mail to:
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
DEVELOPMENT AGREEME~~
Between
•
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city
and
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERsiTY, a
body having corporate powers under the laws of the st·ate of
California
l. of 35
910104 lac: 0031598
• •
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreementn) is
entered into as of this 14th day ot August, 1997, by and between
the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city of the State of California
(hereinafter "City"), and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under
the laws of the State of California (hereinafter ~stanford").
IICI'l'ALS
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is entered into on the basis
of the following facts~ understanding., and intentions of the
parties:
A. These Recitals use certain terms with initial
capital letters which are defined in Section 1 of this Agreement.
City and Stanford intend to refer to those definitions when the
capitalized terms are used in these Recitals.
Bo Goverr~ent Code sections 65864~65869.5 authorize the
parties to enter into a binding development agreement for the
development of real property within City's jurisdiction~
C. Pursuant to Government Code section 65865, City has
adopted Resolution No. 6597 establishing procedures and
requirements for consideration cf development agreements.
D. Stanford is the owner of the Property described in
Exhibit "A. "
E. Stanford has applied for, and the City has certified
or approved, as applicable, certain environmental documents and
land use approvals and entitlements relating to the development of
the Project.. These actions (the "Project Approvals") consist of
the following:
9'70'1CW lac 0031 ,,.
1. CEQA Compliance. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and
the City's CEQA implementing guidelines and procedures
(collectively, "CEQA"), the Project, this Agreement and
the Project Approvals were the subject of an
environmental impact report ("EIR") . The EIR was
certified as adequate by the City Council on June 30,
1997, and the data, analyses, comments, responses,
mitigation measures and other information contained in
the EIR was considered by the City Council prior to its
consideration of and action on the Project, this
Agreement, and the Project Approvals. In connection
2 of 35
• •
with the certification and consideration of the BIR in
relation to its approval of the Project, this Agreement
and the Project Approvals, the City Council made findings
pursuant to CEQA as set forth in its Resolution No. 7685,
dated June 30, 1997 c·CBQA Findings") . The CEQA Findings
are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "B."
2. 1997 Canprehensive Plan Amendments. On June 30,
1997, the City Council adopted the hereinafter described
Resolutions amending the Comprehensive Plan to provide
for the Project (Ml997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments") .
The 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which are
attached to this Agreement and collectively labeled as
BL~ibit •c•, are described as follows:
a. Resolution No. 7687, Amending the Land Use
Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Relating to the Streamside Open Space Land Use
Category
b. Resolution No. 7686, Amending the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for Lands of
Stanford University Located Generally at 1000 Sand
Hill Road (Stanford West Apartment Project)
c. Resolution No. 7689, Amending the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for Lands of
Stanford University Located at 600 and 700 Sand
Hill R~ad (Stanford West Senior Project)
d. Resolution No~ 7690, Amending the Land Use Map
and the Street Network Map of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Relating to Roadway and
Circulation Changes and Changes in the Boundaries
of the Streamside Open Space Area in the Vicinity
of the Stanford Shopping Center
'""' e. Resolution No. 7688, Amending Various Elements
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Relating to
Road Improvements in the Sand Hill Road Corridor
3. 1997 Zoning Ordinance Amendments. On July 14, 1997,
the City Council adopted the hereinafter described
Ordinances amending the Zoning Ordinance to provide for
the Project C'l997 Zoning Ordinance Amendments") . The
1997 Zoning Ordinance Amendments, which are attached to
this Agreement, and collectively labeled as Exhibit "D",
are described as follows:
3 of 35
970704las; 003139&
• •
a.. Ordinance No .. 4430, Amending Section 20.08. 020
(The Setback Map} of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
to Change the Setback Line Along a Portion of Sand
Hill Road
b. Ordinance No. 4426, Amending Section 18.08.040
of the Palo Alto MJ.nicipal Code (The Zoning Map) to
Change the Classification of Property Known as 600
Sand Hill Road and a Portion of 1000 Sand Hill Road
from PF to PC and from RM-30 to PC, Respectively
(Stanford West Senior Housing)
c. Ordinance No. 4427, Amending Section 18.08.040
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to
Change the Zone Classification of Property Located
at 600, 700 and 1000 Sand Hill Road from RM-30 to
PF and from PF to ~~-30
d. Ordinance No. 4428, Amending Section 18.43.050
of the Palo Alto ~~nicipal Code (Community
Commercial District Site Development Regulations),
Relating to the Allowable Floor Area of the
Stanford Shopping Center
e.. Ordinance No. 4429, Amending Section 18.08 .. 040
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to
Change the Zone Classification of Property Located
at 180 Bl Camino Real from CC to CC(L} (Stanford
Shopping Center)
f. Ordinance No. 4431, Conditionally Amending
Section 18.08.0~0 of the Palo Alto MUnicipal Code
(The Zoning Map) by Prezoning as RM-40 a Portion of
a New Parcel to be Created by the Realignment of
Pasteur Drive and by Prezoning as PF(L) an Area of
Land That Will Became Part of Pasteur Drive.
g. Ordinance No. 4432, Amending Section 18.08.040
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to
Change the Zone Classification of a Portion of a
New Parcel to be Created by the Realignment of
Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road from PF(L) to RM-40
4. 1997 Tentative Map. On June 30, 1997, the City
Council approved a tentative subdivision map with an
exception for road right-of-way width for portions of
the Project (•1997 Tentative Map•}. The 1997 Tentative
Map, which is dated October 16, 1996, is on file with the
Deparoment of Planning and Community Environment, and is
incorporated herein by this reference.
4 of 35
970704lac: 0031598
• •
5 . Other Approvals and Bnti tlements. On June 30, 1997.
the City Council granted certain other approvals and
entitlements to provide for the Project, as follows:
a. Architectural Review approval of the Stanford
West Apartments site
b., Design Enhancement Exception to allow leas
private open space for 28 apartment units than is
otherwise required, for the Stanford. West
Apartments
c.. Variance to allow an 18 foot setback on Sand
Hill Road for parking spaces and carports vhere 25
feet is otherwise required, for the Stanford West
Apartments
d~ Variance to allow on-street parking where off-
street parking is otherwise required, for the
Stanford West Apartments
e. Site and Design approval for the Stanford West
Apartments site
f. Design Enhancement Exception to side yard
fencing regulations to allow no solid wall or fence
to be provided along the common property line
between the Multiple Family {RM) zoned site and the
Planned Community (PC) zoned Senior Housing site
g. Architectural Review approval of the Senior
Housing site
h. Arc hi teet ural Review a~~proval of t.he Stanford
Shopping Center expansion
i. Variance to allow a setback 1-~/2 feet on
Arboretum Road for various retail building where 24
feet is otherwise required, for the Stanford
Shopping Center expansion
j. Architectural Review approval for the Roadway
Improvements
6. Conditions of Approval.. The 1997 Canprehensive Plan
Amendments, the 1997 Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the
1997 Tentative Map, and the Other Entitlements were
adopted and approved by the City Council subject to
specific conditions (collectively, the ·conditions of
s of 35
• •
Approval") . The Conditions of Approval are attached to
this Agreement as Exhibit •E.•
7. Development Agreement Ordinance. City has duly
adopted and posted, in accordance with all applicable
laws, ordinances and charter provisions, Ordinance No.
4433 authorizing the Mayor to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the City. A certified copy of the Ordinance is
attached as Exhibit ~J.p
F. City desires to obtain the binding agreement of
Stanford for the development of the Property in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement, the Comprehensive Plan, as amended,
the zoning and the various other approvals and conditions related
thereto.
G. Stanford desires to obtain the binding agreement of
City that City will permit Stanford to develop the Property in
accordance with the Applicable Rules and Subsequent Applicable
Rules, including any modifications permitted by this Agreement.
H. Stanford has applied to City pursuant to the
Development Agreement Act and City's Resolution No. 6597 for
approval of a development agreement providing for the binding
agreements desired by the parties hereto~ City's Planning
Commission and Council have given notice of intention to consider
this Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to
Government Code section 65867 and City's Resolution No. 6597 and
have found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent
with City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
I. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have been
found by City to be fair, just and reasonable, and provide benefits
to City.
J. This Agre~~nt is consistent with the present public
health, safety and welfare needs of the residents of the City of
Palo Alto and the surrounding region. City has approved the
Project and granted the entitlements after considering the impacts
and benefits of the Project upon the health, safety and welfare of
the City and the region. City has also determined that the
Project, as con:iitioned and modified, represents a reasonable
balancing of the competing interests of the affected region.
K. This Agreement will bind future City Councils to the
terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and limit, to the
degree specified in this Agreement and under state law, the future
exercise of City's ability to preclude development on the Property.
6 of 35
970704 lac 0031 S98
• •
L. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in
planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property,
eliminate uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by
City, allow installation of necessary improvements, provide for
public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and
generally serve the public interest, both within the City of Palo
~to and in the surrounding region.
M. Development of the Project in accordance with this
Agreement and the Approvals will provide for orderly development
consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan. The terms and conditions
of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff,
its Planning Commission and the City Council, and have been found
to be fair. just and reasonable. Specifically, the Planning
Commission and the City Council have found that:
1. The provisions of this Agreement and its purposes
are consistent with the goals, policies, programs and
standards specified in City's Comprehensive Plan;
2. This Agreement will help attain important economic,
social, environmental and planning goals of City and
enhances and protects the public health, safety and
welfare of the residents of the City of Palo Alto and the
surrounding region.
3. Stanford will incur substantial costs in providing
public improvements, facilities and services for the
benefit of the public in excess of that required to
address the impacts of the Project;
4. This Agreement will mitigate significant
environmental impacts; and
5. This Agreement will otherwise achieve the goals and
purposes for which the Development Agreement Act was
enacted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. Definitions. In this Agre~-nent, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(a) "Applicable Rules" means the rules, regulations
and official policies of City in force on June 30, 1997, governing
permitted uses of the Property, governing density, and governing
design, improvement and construction standards and specifications
applicable to the Project, as amended by the Project Approvals.
(b) "City" is the City of Palo Alto.
7 of 35
• •
I
•
(c) •comprehensive
Comprehensive Plan.
Plan•
•
is the Palo Alto
(d) •conditions of Approval• are the conditions
placed upon the approval of the Project by the City Council, and
include the environmental mitigations adopted by the City Council~
The Conditions of Approval are attached Exhibit wE.~
(e) •Development Agreement Act • means Sections
65864 ~ 65869.5 of the California Government Code.
(f) •oiscret ionary Act ion • includes a
"Discretionary Approval• and is an action which requires the
exercise of judgment, deliberation or a decision, and which
contemplates and authorizes the imposition of revisions or
conditions~ by City, including any board, commission or department
and any officer or employee thereof·' in the process of approving or
df..aapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from an
activity which merely re~~ires City, including any board/
commission or department dnd any officer or employee thereof, to
determine whether there has been compliance with applicable
statutes, ordinances, regulations, or conditions of approval.
(g) •Effective DateN is August 14, 1997.
{h) "'Mortgage" means and refers I singly and
collectively, to any mortgages, deeds of trust, security
agreementst assignments and other like security instruments
encumbering all or any portion of the Property or Stanford's rights
under this Agreement.
(i) ~Mortgagee• means and refers to the holder of
any Mortgage encumbering all or any portion of the Property or
Stanfordts rights under this Agreement, and any successor, assignee
or transferee of any such Mortgage holder.
(j) •Party• is a signatory to this Agreement, or a
successor or assign of a signatory to this Agreement.
(k) •Project• means development of the Property in
accordance with the Applicable Rules, Project Approvals, and this
Agreement, including the following five projects studied in the
Environmental Impact Report: The Stanford West Apartment Project
(the "Apartment Project•); the Stanford West Senior Housing Project
(the "Senior Project"); the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion
Project (the "Shopping Center Project"}; a collection of various
roadway improvements, including widening and extension of Sand Hill
Road, widening and improvement of Quarry Road, construction of a
new Vineyard Lane, extension of Palo Road, extension of Stockfar.m
8 of 35
• •
Road, and related roadway improvements (the •Roadway Project•); and
the creation and annexation of a small parcel of property that will
be created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road
(the "Annexation Project"}. A more detailed description of the
separate projects that comprise the "Project • is set forth in
Chapter 3 of the EIR, as modified by EIR Chapter 14 and the •BIR
Summary of Changes Incorporated into the Project• and is attached
as Exhibit "F."
(1) "Project Approvals" means the Comprehensive
Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, varia.."lces~ site and
desig11 and architectural review, tentative or final maps, and any
other permits, licenses or other entitlements, discretionary or
ministerial, relating to the development of the Property, which are
described in Recital E or attached Exhibits RB" through "E.~
(rn) The "Property('! means and is more particularly
described in attached Exhibit "A."
{n) "Public Improvements~ means those public
.improvements that Stanford agrees to construct and dedicate to the
City, or that the City or such other public entity as the City
shall lawfully designate, may acquire, constA:'uCt, equip, install,
operate or maintain.
( o) "Stanford tt is the Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powt?rs
under the laws of the State of California and its successors,
assigns, transferees, or other persons or entities acquiring title
to or an ownership interest in the Property or Project.
(p) "Subsequent Applicable Rules" rrseans the rules,
regulations and official policies of City, as they may be adopted
and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement, governing
permitted uses of the Property, governing density, and governing
design, improvement and construction standards and specifications
applicable to the Project.
(q) "Zoning Ordinance• is the zoning ordinance for
the City of Palo Alto (Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) .
2. Interest of Stanford. Stanford represents to City
that, as of the Effective Date, it owns the Property in fee,
subject only to encumbrances, easements, covenants, conditions,
restrictions and other matters of record.
3. BinQing Effect~ Subject to the provisions of
Section 18 (f) below, this Agreement, and all of the terms and
conditions hereof, shall run with the land and shall be binding
9 of 35
9707041ac 0031,98
• •
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
assigns, heirs or other successors in interest.
4. Negation of Agency. The parties acknowledge that,
in entering into and performing this Agreement, each is acting as
an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any
respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in
connection herewith shall be construed as making City and Stanford
joint venturers or partners.
5. Development of the Property. The following specific
restrictions shall govern the use and development of the Property:
(a) Permitted Uses. The Property may be used as
set forth in the Applicable Rules, Project Approvals and this
Agreement, including without limitation Exhibits ~<Bit through "E.~
(b) Maximum Density and Intensity Qf Uses~ When
developed, the density and intensity of use of the Property shall
not exceed those densities and intensities of use set forth in the
Applicable Rules, Project Approvals and this Agreement.
(c) Dedication of Property for Public ~urpos~.
Provisions for the dedication of land for public purposes are set
forth in Section 6 below.
(d) Other Development Standards. All design and
development standards not set forth in the Project Approvals or
this Agreement shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules as
applied to the project through the applicable zoning and other
future actions taken by City; provided such standards shall not
be inconsistent with the Project Approvals.
(e) Subsequent Applicable Rule~. A Subsequent
Applicable Rule can be applied to the Project without Stanford's
consent only if City determines it necessary to protect against
conditions which create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the
physical health or safety of residents or users of the Project or
the affected surrounding region.
6. Dedications. Exactions. Mitigations and
Reservations.
Stanford shall make the dedications, exactions,
mitigations or reservations required by the Project Approvals and
Applicable Rules, and all real property conveyances, encumbrances~
or other contracts of any kind shall be in a for.m acceptable to the
City Attorney. The specific provisions of the Project Approvals
shall control over conflicting or duplicative provisions of the
Applicable Rules relating to dedications, exactions, mdtigations or
10 of 35
970704 lac 003 l S98
• •
reservations. For convenience, Section 6(a} contains an exemplary
list of the easements required by the Project Approvals, but it
shall not create any in.dependent, additional requirements.
(a} Easements.
( 1) Apartment Project . Necessary easements to
serve the Apartment Project for electric, water, gas; wastewater
and stor.m drain purposes; an easement or easements for purposes of
bicycle and pedestrian access on "Main" Street and between the
existing bike/pedestrian bridge at San Mateo Avenue and the
Project; necessary easements to serve the Apartment Project for
emergency vehicle access; and other dedications per subdivision
approval, as all such easements are described in the 1997 Tentative
Map and Project Approvals.
(2) Senior Project. Necessary easements to serve
the Senior Project for electrice water, gasi wastewater and storm
drain purposes; an access and maintenance easement in favor of the
Santa Clara Valley Water District; necessary easements to serve the
Senior Project for ero.ergency vehicle access; and bike paths, as all
such easements a.re described in the 1997 Tentative Map and Project
Approvals.
( 3} Sllopping Center Project. Necessary easements
to serve the Shopping Center for electriq, water, gas 1 wastewater
and storm drain purposes, as all such easements are described in
the Project Approvals
(4) Roadway Easements. Easements for right-of-way
purposes for all public streets; necessary easements for traffic
signal control; necessary easements for electric, water, gas,
wastewater and storm drain purposes; easement for utility vehicle
access to, and reasonable clearance around, the utility substation
on Quarry Road; and public transit easements, as all such easements
are described in the 1997 Tentative Map and the Conditions of
Approval.
(b) Below-Market-Rate ("BMR"l Housing Requirement.
Stanford shall make certain units in the Apartment Project
available for leasing at below-market rental rates (the "BMR
Program") to fulfill its obligations under Program 13 of the
Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to both the
Apartment Project and the Senior Housing Project. The specific
requirements of the B:MR Program are set forth in the attached
Exhibit "G." Certain additional terms of the BMR Program described
in Exhibit "G" shall be determined by Stanford, subject to the
reasonable approval of City's Director of Planning and Community
Environment, before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the
Apartment Project.
11 of 35
~~~~~~~~~~----------------------------------• •
(C) AQA;tment Rental Management Plan 4 Stanford
shall prepare and subndt an Apartment Rental Management Plan for
the apartment project which shall provide that priority for the
units shall be given to Stanford employees and persons working on
Stanford lands. The Apartment Rental Management Plan shall be
consistent with Exhibit •H-1• and in a form acceptable to the City
Manager. The Apartment Rental Management Plan attached as Exhibit
•H-1• is acceptable and approved.
The Apartment Rental Management Plan shall be in
effect for the duration of the project, and shall survive the term
of this Agreement.
{d) City~Retained Experts~ Several Conditions of
Approval for the Project require the exercise of highly specialized
tecr~ical skills or professional judgment by City, and in order to
fulfill these obligations City will be required to retain
professional experts as consultants or contractors. City shall
retain complete revie~ and approval responsibility for the
functions performed by such retained experts, and City shall not
delegate final decision rraking responsibility to such experts.
{1} Payment. Stanford shall pay the total costs
incurred by City in contracti~g for the services of certain third
party professional experts in connection with construction of the
Project (collectively, liCity Consultants~), as required by the
Conditions of Approval. The compensation payable to the City
Consultants shall be commensurate with the prevailing market rates
in the Palo Alto or greater Bay area for similar services. Upon
City approval of the initial agreement for services for each City
Consultant, Stanford shall deposit with City ru1 amount up to 20% of
the total approved contract amount. The exact amount of the
deposit will vary depending on the consultant contract and will be
determined by the City staff person assigned to oversee the
contract. Thereafter, each quarter, City shall provide Stanford
with an estimate of the amounts that will be payable to the City
Consultants during the following three-month period, indicating for
each how much deposit is currently available~ how much additional
deposit will be needed to fund the contracts during that period,
and a schedule for providing the additional deposits. City shall
provide Stanford with stat~~nts ite~~zing the charges to Stanford
in reasonable detail.
Stanford understands and acknowledges that City's
contractual agreements with each City Consultant will provide that
no work under such contract shall commence or continue, as the case
may be, until and unless sufficient funds are on deposit to the
account of that contract to cover the cost of such work, and that
failure on the part of Stanford to make timely payments may result
in a cessation of construction-related operations.
12 of 35
970704 lac 0031591
~~~~~~~~~~---------------------~-----~-------• •
Stanford may inspect and audit Cityts records with
respect to all such charges in accordance with the california
Public Records Act.
( 2) Scope of Work and Authority. 'Ibe scope of worlc:
for each of the City Consultants shall provide only for those
services that are reasonably necessary to fulfill the purposes
described in the Conditions of Approval . Additional services may
be provided, as mutually agreed upon by City and Stanford. City
agrees to establish in the initial scope of work for each City
Consultant the general duties to be performed by the City
Consultant, a fi.xed hourly rate of payl and an estimated total
contract amount, based on City staff's professional judgment and
knowledge of the project at the time the contract is executed. City
and Stanford recognize and acknowledge that the schedule of work
for most City Consultants will be greatly dependent upon such
variables as the timing of submittals from Stanford and its
consultants, constru.ction scheduling and timing and unplanned
contingencies, and that these variables may result in and r~-vuire
changes in the scope of services or estimated budget for a City
Consultant contract.
City shall perfor.m proper oversight to ensure that
only the reasonable and necessary amount of time and effort is
being expended by each City Consultant1 to competently perform hie
or her assigned tasks according to the standards of his or her
professionf in an efficient, economical and timely ~dr~~er.
(3) Fee Waiv§r. City shall not require Stanford
to pay any fees otherwise payable under the Municipal Fee Schedule
for any services that will be performed by a City Consultant
pursuant to this section 6.4.
(4) Regyired Consultants. The City Consultants
that Stanford shall be required to fund are listed below.
a. Arborist$
b. Creek Restoration Specialist.
c. Archaeologist/Historian~
d. Senior Level Planner.
e. Building Pl~n Checker and Inspector.
f. Electric Utility Engineer/Inspector.
g. Public Works Engineer/Inspector.
h. Hydrologist.
(e) Annexations. City shall petition the Local
Agency Formation Commission to annex to City the unincorporated
island that will be created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at
Sand Hill Road. Stanford agrees that it will not oppose the
annexation and that it will cooperate by executing all necessary
13 of 35
9707041ac 0031S98
• •
documents, by providing info1.-mation required by LAFCO or City,
acting as the conductin.g authority, and by attending LAFCO and City
hearings and testifying in favor of the annexation. Stanford shall
not he required to pay any of the costs of the annexation other
than compensation of its staff and retained experts necessary to
comply with the provisions of this section 6(e).
(f) Designation of Job Site tor Sales and Use Tax
Pu~oses. Stanford shall designate and shall require its
contractors and subcontractors to designate the Property as the
place of sale of "fixtures" furnished and installed by them for the
Project, and also to designate and require its contractors and
subcontractors to designate the Property as the place of use of
~materials" used in construction of the Project. Stanford agrees
and shall require its contractors and subcontractors to complete
and file any forms as the State Board of Equalization may
reasonably require to effect the designations required by this
section 6(f), pursuant to Regulation 1806 of the State Board of
Equalization.
{g) El Camino Pa~k. City leases land from Stanford
along El Camino Real that is improved with El Crunino Park
facilities, and other recreational and commercial facilities
(collectively, the "Current Lease"). The parties shall amend the
Current Lease:
970704 t.c 0031S98
(i) to define the premises leased to the City
to include only (1) those portions of the
Current Lease premises that are now
dedicated for park purposes, pursuant to,
and as described in, Section 22 .. 08.230
(the ~park~) and (2) that portion of the
CUrrent Lease premises which includes the
train depot lease area (the Ndepotn), as
more particularly described in Exhibit
"H-2," attached hereto. The amendment is
hereinafter referred to as the "Amended
Lease;"
(ii) to extend the ter.m of the Amended Lease
to June 30, 2033;
(iii) with respect to the park, to reduce the
rent under the Amended Lease to $1.00 per
year; and
( i v) with respect to the depot, to continue
under the same terms and conditions as
the Current Lease, provided, that City
14 of 35
• •
shall have the right to terminate the
depot lease on February 26, 2013.
The Amended Lease will be effective as of the date
Stanford is issued the first building permit for either the
Apartment project or the Senior Housing project.
A map generally showing the property included in the
Current Lease and the property to be included in the Amended Lease
is attached as part of Exhibit "H-2."
To effect the purpose of this prov~s1on, City shall
assign to Stanford any subleases it now has with respect to that
property under the Current Lease which will not be included in the
Amended Lease, and Stanford agrees to accept such assignments.
(h) ~ilg Car~. Stanford will lease to a qualified
child care prov~aer, at a rent of $1.00 per year, an approximately
one-half acre parcel on the Stanford West site between the Village
Green and Governor's Lane, for the purpose of constructing and
operating a child care facility, subject to obtaining all required
penni,ts.
In the event that Stanford is unable to find a
provider willing to construct the facility, Stanford shall
construct it prior to the opening of the final phase of the
Stanford West Apartments. If Stanford is unable to find a provider
willing to operate the facility, Stanford shall operate it.
This provision shall be in effect for the duration
of the project, and shall survive the term of this Agreement.
(i) Sand Hill Corridor Future Development. Until
December 31, 2020, Stanford shall not develop the approximately
139-acre parcel known as Special Condition Area nB," as defined in
the 1989 General Use Permit* except for academic and recreational
fields (including the golf course) and associated support
facilities; provided, it may propose Stanford University faculty,
staff or student housing in that part of Area "B" east of Fremont
Road. A map showing the location of Area "B" is attached as
Exhibit "H-3."
(j) No Other Dedications. Except as set forth in
this Section or Section 9 below, or as may be agreeable to
Stanford, Stanford shall not be required to make any dedications or
reservations of the Property, or any portion thereof or interest
therein, or of any other property in connection with the
development, construction, use, or operation of the Project, or any
portion thereof, ·
15 of 35
9707041ac 0031 S91
• •
(k) No Other Public I.w,rrQvem~nts or Financ.ial.
ContriJ2ytions.. Sta.~ford shall not be required to construct public
improvements or make financial contributions to City in lieu of
public tmprovements, except as expressly set forth in this
Agreement, or as may be agreeable to Stanford, or as provided in
Sections 8 and 9 below.
7. Phasing Schedule. Stanford shall construct the
Project and comply with the Conditions of Approval, including the
requirements of Section 6 of this Agreement, in accordance with the
schedule set. forth in Exhibit lti ~" Stanford shall have no
obligation to develop the project, or any component of it, unless
and until it obtains a building permit or permits, at which time
Stanford shall be obligated to complete each component of the
project for vhich the building permit or permits were obtained, as
well as all public improvements, conditions of approval, mitigation
measures: or other elements of the project approvals required by
the phasing schedule to be completed before occupancy of each
component for which building permits have been obtained~ Stanford
may develop the Project in its sole discretion in accordance with
Stanford's tiJn.-2 schedule, subject to the Tetm of this Agreement set
forth in Section 17, provided const~~ction is not accelerated and
the ordert sequence and phasing of the Project shown on Exhibit 11 I"
is not altered.
Stanford may request a change in the order, sequence and
phasing of development of the Project components. If Stanford
requests such a change, it shall provide City an amended Exhibit ui"
showing the requested change and explaining the reasons for the
proposed amendment. Within a reasonable time of receiving the
amended exhibit, the City Manager (a} shall determine whether
additional environmental review is required; {b) may re-deter.mine
the timing of the construction of the dedications, exactions,
~~tigations, reservations, or other conditions of approval,
including without limitation any public improvements, so that the
improvements necessary to serve each component of the Project and
to mitigate its impacts are completed before occupancy of such
component and may modify the amended exhibit to reflect his or her
determinations; and, finally, (c) shall approve or disapprove the
requested change. If Stanford desires to proceed in accordance
with the amended exhibit, it shall promptly give written notice of
its acceptance of the amended exhibit, otherwise the existing
Exhibit ~I~ shall remain in effect.
Stanford may request in writing a change in the time of
performance of any condition of approval or mitigation measure.
Within a reasonable time of receiving the request, the City Manager
or her designee (a) shall determine whether additional
environmental review is required because of the proposed change;
(b) may condition approval upon changes in the timing of related
16 of 35
I
• •
conditions or mitigation measures; and, finally, (c) shall approve,
conditionally approve or deny the requested change.. Within a
reasonable time of receivinq the City Manager's decision approving
the request, Stanford shall give written notice of its acceptance
or of its withdrawal of the request. The change shall be effective
upon receipt by the City of the notice of acceptance.
B. Cgnditionq ang ~sitiona. Stanford shall comply
with the following conditions and ~sitions in connection with
subdivision and development of the Property:
(a) Comply with all Project Approvals and
Conditions of Approval;
{b) Complete any action deemed necessary pursuant
to Section 9 below.
(c) Construct the road improve.rnents approved as .96-
ARB-92.
9. Agre~ment ~-Assurant;e;?.
{a) Agreement and Assurances on the Part of
Stanford. The parties acknowledge and agree that development of
the Property will result in substantial public needs and further
acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers unique benefits
on Stanford which can only be balanced by the provision of
extraordinary public benefits. The parties intend by this
Agreement to provide consideration to the public to balance the
private benefits conferred on Stanford by providing for the
satisfaction of certain direct ~~d indirect public needs resulting
from or relating to the Project, and to provide public assurance
that this Agreement is fair_ just and reasonable.. and prompted by
the necessities of the situation so as to provide extraordinary
benefits to City. Stanford acknowledges that the Conditions of
Approval, including without limitation any dedications, mitigation,
exactions and reservations, are fair, just and reasonable under the
circumstances, and in consideration of the benefits conferred by
this Agreement, Stanford hereby waives and releases any challenge,
protest or other rights it may rave with respect to the legality of
the Conditions of Approval. In consideration of the foregoing and
in consideration of City's assurances for completion of the Project
pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in Section 9(b) and
(f) below, Stanford hereby agrees as follows:
(1) Stanford will develop the Project in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
Project Approvals¥ and the Applicable Rules, and with the
Subsequent Applicable Rules when required by this Agreement.
17 of 35
970704 Ia.:: 0031 S98
• •
(2) In addition to any other remedies provided
the City under this Agreement, if Stanford fails t:o make any
payment or complete any other material act or performance specified
in this Agreement, Stanford shall have no further right or
entitlement to any certificate of occupancy until the default has
been cured as provided in Section lO(c) of this Agreement; provided
further that Stanford shall have no further right or entitlement to
any building permit unless it is diligently proceeding to complete
such actions necessary to cure the default as provided in Section
lO(c) of this Agreement. The Parties recognize that this
subparagraph may result in the limitation or cessation of the
rights otherwise conferred by this Agreement upon Stanford Cas
defined to include any successors, assigns, transferees, or other
persons or entities acquiring title to or an interest in th~
Property or Project) for development.
{b) ~ement and Assuranc~§ on the P~rt qt the
.c.ity. In order to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement and
as an inducement for Stanford to obligate itself to carry out the
covenants and conditions set forth in the preceding Section 8{a) of
this Agreement and in consideration for Stanford doing so, City
hereby agrees and assures Sta.Ylford that Stanford will be permi~ted
to carry out and complete the entire Project, subject to the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, the conditions established in the
Project Appro~~ls and the Applicable Rules. In furtherance of such
agreement and assurance, and pursuant to the authority and
provisions set forth in the Development Agreement Act, City, in
entering into this Agreement, hereby agrees and acr~owledges that:
(1) Entitlement to DevelQP. As of the
Effective Date, Stanford has acquired and been granted the vested
right to develop the Project to the extent and in the manner
provided in this Agx-eement, subject to the Conditions of Approval
imposed by the Projoct Approvals and in accordance with the
Applicable Rules and Subsequent Applicable Rules when required by
this Agreement, and City hereby finds the Project consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Any change in the Applicable Rules, including,
without limitation, any change in any applicable general or
specific plan, zoning, subdivision or building ordinance or
regulation, adopted or becoming effective on or after the Effective
Date including, without limitation, any such change by means of
ordinance, initiative, referendum, resolution, policy~ order or
moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and
adopted by the Mayor I City Council, Planning Coornission or any
other board, commission or department of City, or any officer or
employee thereof, or by the electorate~ as the case may be, which
would, absent this Agreement, otherwise be applicable co the
Project and which would conflict in any way with or b~ more res-
18 of 35
970704 lac 0031.598
• •
trictive than the Applicable Rules, shall not be applied by City to
the Project without Stanford's consent unless City deter.mines it
necessary to protect against conditions which create a substantial
and demonstrable risk to the physical health or safety of residents
or users of the Project or the affected surrounding region. Any
Subsequent Applicable Rule can be applied to the Project without
Stanford's consent only if City determines it necessary to protect
against conditions which create a substantial and demonstrable risk
to the physical health or safety of residents or users of the
Project or the affected surrounding region.
Any subsequent Discretionary Action which does
not change the density, intensity of use or other site development
standards permitted on the Property shall be governed by the
Applicable Rules, unless City determines that a Subsequent
Applicable Rule is necessary to protect against conditions which
create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the physical health
or safety of residents or users of the Project or the affected
surrounding region. ~~Y subsequent Discretionary Action which does
change the density, intensity of use or other site development
standards permitted on the Property shall be subject to the Subse~
quent Applicable Rules provided, however, that no such subsequent
Discretionary Action, when approved, will constitute grounds for
the termination of this Agreement or otherwise affect the en-
forceability of this Agreement with respect to the development of
the Property hereunder.
Any subsequent Discretionary Actions by City or
any conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for such
Discretionary Actions by City, shall not, without Stanford's
consent, prevent development of the Property for the uses and to
the maximum density or intensity of development and other site
development standards set forth in this Agreement, unless City
determines it is necessary to protect against conditions which
create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the physical health
or safety of residents or users of the Project or the affected
surrounding region.
(2) Consistency with Applicable Rul~. City
finds, based upon all information made available to City prior to
or concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, that there
are no Applicable Rules that would prohibit or prevent the full
completion and occupancy of the Project in accordance with uses,
densities, designs, heights and sizes incorporated and agreed to
herein.
(3) Subsequent Discretionary Action~. With
respect to any Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval that
is required subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, City
agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold from Stanford or
19 of 35
970704lac 0031 S98
• •
unreasonably condition or delay any such Discretionary Action or
Discretior:.::try Approval which must be issued by City in order for
the ProjecL ~o proceed to construction and occupancy. In addition,
no condition shall, without Stanford's consent, preclude or
otherwise limit Stanford's ability to develop the Project in
accordance with the density and intensity of use and site
development specifications set forth in this Agreement nor other-
wise conflict with any provision of this Agreement, unless City
determines it is necessary to protect against conditions which
create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the physical health
or safety of residents or users of the Project or the affected
surrounding region.
(c) Cooperation and Implementation. City agrees
that it will cooperate with Stanford to the fullest extent
reasonable and feasible to implement this Agreement. Upon
satisfactory completion by Stanford of all required preliminary
actions and payments of appropriate fees, City will commence and in
a timely manner proceed to complete all steps necessary for the
implementation of this Agreement and the development of the
Property in accordance with the te:nns of this Agreement, including,
but not limited to, the processing and checking of any and all
Project Approvals, agreements, covenants, applications and related
matters required under the conditions of this Agreement, building
plans and specifications and any other plans necessary for the
development of the Property~ filed by Stanford and the issuance of
all necessary building permits, occupancy certificates or other
required permits for the construction, use and occupancy of the
Property. Stanford will, in a timely manner, provide City with all
documents, plans and other information necessary for City to carry
out its obligations hereunder ..
(d) Identification of Applicable Rules. Prior to
the Effective Date, the parties will use reasonable efforts to
identify two {2) sets of the Applicable Rules, one (1} set for the
City and one (1} set for Stanford, so that if it becomes necessary
in the future to refer to any of the Applicable Rules, there will
be a common set of the Applicable Rules available to both parties.
Failure by City to identify written Applicable Rules shall in no
manner l~it City's ability to later identify or use such
Applicable Rules.
{e) No Other Exactions. Except as set forth in
Sect i.ons 6, 7, 8, and 9 and except as may be required by the
Conditions of Approval, no other exactions shall be required to be
paid~ dedicated, constructed or contributed by Stanford in
connection with this Agreement or any Project Approval, unless City
determines, based upon conditions not anticipated by City and
Stanford on or before the Effeqtive Date, that such exaction is
necessary to protect against conditions which create a substantial
20 of 35
970704 * 0031591
• •
and demonstrable risk to the physical health and safety of
residents or users of the Project or the affected surrounding
region. For purposes of this Agreement, exaction shall mean any
requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any
Applicable Rule or any Project Approval for dedication of land,
construction or improvement of public facilities, payment of fees
or znak.ing any other contribution required in order to address
impacts of development on the community or the impacts of this
Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, usual and customary
application. processing and permit fees of the type now in effect
shall not be considered exactions, and shall be paid by Stanford in
whatever amount has been established by City in a generally
applicable manner at the time any such application, processing or
per.mit is sought by Stanford+
{f) Appl i ;;at ion of Subsequent Appl i cabl r;. __ Rul e~ .
Stanford hereby agrees that any Subsequent Applicable Rules can be
applied to the Project if City determines, based upon conditions
not anticipated by City and Stanford on or before the Effective
Date, that it is necessary to do so in order to protect against
conditions which create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the
physical health and safety of residents or users of the Project or
the affected surrounding region.
10. ~~ic Rey~~w of Complianc~.
{a} Periodic Review~ City shall review this
Agreement annually, on or before the aru1iversary of the Effective
Date~ in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in
this Agreement and in Resolution No. 6597 in order to ascertain
compliance by Stanford with the terms of the Agreement. Stanford
shall submit an annual report, in a for.m reasonably acceptable to
City, within 30 days after ~Titten notice from City. The annual
report shall be accompanied by an annual review fee sufficient to
cover the estimated costs of review and ad.rninistration of the
Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual
review and admdnistration fee shall not exceed City's actual costs
for such review and administration.
{b) Special Review. The City Council of City may
order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any
time. The Director of Planning and Community Environment
(•Planning Directoru) or City Council, as determined from time to
time by the City Council, shall conduct such special reviews.
(c) Procedure.
(1) During either a periodic review or a
special review, Stanford shall be required to demonstrate good
faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of
21 of 35
• •
proof on this issue shall be on Stanford~ The Parties acknowledge
that failure by Stanford to demonstrate good faith compliance shall
constitute grounds for termination or modification of this
Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Section 10.
(2) Upon completion of a periodic review or a
special review, the Planning Director shall submit a report to the
City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith
compliance by Stanford with the terms of this Agreement and the
recommended finding on that issue.
(3) If the City Council finds on the basis of
substantial evidence that Stanford has complied in good faith with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be
concluded~
{4) If the City Council makes a finding that
Stanford has not complied in good faith with the terms and
conditions of this Agreer-nent 1 the City shall provide written notice
to Stanford describing: ( i) such failure to comply lo.ti th the terms
and conditions of this Agreement (referred to herein as a
"Default"), (ii.) whether the Default can be cured, (iii) the
actions, if anyl required by Stanford to cure such Default, and
(iv) the time period within which such Default must be cured. If
the Default can be cured, Stanford shall have at a minimum 90 days
after the date of such notice to cure such Default 1 or in the event
that such Default cannot be cured within such 90-day period but can
be cured within one {1) year, Stanford shall have commenced the
actions necessary to cure such Default and shall be diligently
proceeding to complete such actions necessary to cure such Default
within 90 days from the date of notice.. If the default cannot be
cured or cannot be cured within one {1) yeart as determined by City
during periodic or special review, the City Council may modify or
terminate this Agree~ent as provided in Section lO(d) and Section
10 (e) •
(5) If Stanford fails to cure a Default within
the time periods set forth in Section lO{c) (4}, the City Council
may modify or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section lO(d)
and Section lO{e).
(d) Proceedings Upon MOdification or Termination.
If, upon a finding under Section lO{c) and the expiration of the
cure period specified in Section lO(c) {4} above, City deter.mines to
proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, City
shall give written notice to Stanford of its intention so to do.
The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days before the
scheduled hearing and shall contain:
22 of 35
970704 "" 003 J 591
• •
(1) The time and place of the hearing;
(2) A statement as to whether or not City
proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and
(3) Such other information as is reasonably
necessary to inform Stanford of the nature of the proceeding.
(e) Hearings on Modifikation or Terminatigg. At
the time and place set for the hearing on modification or
termination, Stanford shall be given an opportunity to be heard and
shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on the
issue shall be on Stanford. If the City Council finds, based upon
substantial evidence, that Stanford has not corr.plied in good faith
with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council rr~y
terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement and impose such
conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests cf
City. The decision of the City Council shall be final and subject
to judicial review only pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
1094.5.
(f) Certificate of Compliance. If, at the
conclusion of a periodic or special review, Stanford is found to be
in compliance with this Agreem~nt, City shall, upon request by
Stanford, issue a Certificate of Compliance ( "Certificateft) to
Stanford stating that after the most recent periodic or special
review and based upon the information known or made known to the
Planning Director and City Council that: ( 1) this Agreement
remains in effect, and (2) Stanford is not in default.. The
Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information
necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding
of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after
a periodic or special review and shall state the anticipated date
of commencement of the next periodic review. Stanford may record
the Certificate.
Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by
assignees or other transferees or Stanford, City shall not be bound
by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the periodic
or special review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to
the Planning Director or City Council.
11. Modification, Amendment or cancellation. Subject to
meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the
Development Agreement Act, this Agreement may be modified or
amended from time to time by mutual consent of the parties or their
successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of Section
65868 of the Development Agreement Act and City's Resolution No.
6597; provided, however, that any amendment which does not relate
23 of 35
970704 lac 0031 S98
• •
to the term, permitted uses, density or intensity of use, site
development standards, provisions for reservation and dedication of
land, conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to
subsequent Discretionary Actions, or any conditions or covenants
relating to the use of the Property, if deemed appropriate by City,
shall not require notice or public hearing.
12. Remedies for Default. It is acknowledged by the
parties that City would not have entered into this Agreement if it
were to have liability in damages under this Agreement, or with
respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. The parties
intend by the provisions of this Section 12 that City shall have no
liability for damages arising out of a breach of this Agreement.
It is further acknowledged that City would not have entered into
this Agreement if Stanford had not acknowledged that a reasonable
relationship exists between all dedications, reservations,
conditions, impositions or other exactions imposed and the impact
of the Project upon the community. In additionl it is further
acknowledged that City would not have entered into this Agreement
if Stanford had not acknowledged that the direct and indirect
impacts of the Project warrant and require the terms and conditions
of this Agreement.
Each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law
or equity available for the breach of any provision of this
Agreement, including but not limited to temporary or pennanent
injunctive relief or restraining orders, except that City shall
have no liability in damages to Stanford during the term of this
Agreement or thereafter with respect to any acts which are alleged
to have commenced or occurred during the term of this Agreement.
The parties further acknowledge that money damages and
remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance
is an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and
should be available to all parties for the following reasons:
(a) Money damages against City are excluded as provided
above.
(b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it
may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its
original condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun.
After. such implementation, Stanford may be foreclosed from other
choices it may have had to utilize the Property or portions
thereof. Stanford has invested significant time and resources and
performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in
agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even
more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in
reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible
24 of 35
970704 lac 0031598
• •
to deter.mine the sum of money which would adequately compensate
Stanford for such efforts.
Except for non-damages remedies, including the remedy of
specific performance, Stanford, for itself, its successors and
assignees, hereby releases City, its officers, agents and employees
from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or
nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or
future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability,
based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the
california Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which
seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the
City because it entered into this Agreement, because of the terms
of this Agreement, or because of the manner of implementation or
performance of this Agreement.
All legal actions shall be heard by a reference from the
Santa Clara County Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 638, et seq~ Stanford and City shall agree upon
a single referee who shall then try all issuesJ whether of fact or
law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal
and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the
controversy before him. If Stanford and City are unable to agree
on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by
either party hereto, either party may seek to have one appointed
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 640. The cost of such
proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties. Any
referee selected pursuant to this Section 11 shall be considered a
temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the
california Constitution.
13. Litigation EXPenses. If a legal action or
proceeding is brought by any party because of default under this
Agre~~t, or to enforce a provision thereof, the prevailing party
therein shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief, to
recover reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs from the losing
party as determined by the court in which said action or proceeding
is pending.
14. Superseding State or Federal Law. In the event that
any state or federal law or regulation enacted or adopted after the
date of this Agreement shall prevent or preclude compliance with
any of the provisions hereof, such provisions shall be modified or
suspended only to the extent and for the time necessary to achieve
compliance with said law or regulation and the remaining provisions
of this Agreement shall be in full force and effect. Upon repeal
of said law or regulation or occurrence of other circumstances
removing the effect thereof upon this Agreement, the provisions
hereof shall be resto1:ed to their full original effect.
25 of 35
9?0'704 * 0031,98
.... -----------------------------------------• •
15~ Ugld Barm1ess. Stanford agrees to and shall hold
City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives, ha~ess
and shall defend and indemnify City, its officers, agents,
employees and representatives from liability for damage or claims
for damage for personal injury, including death, and claims for
property damage which may arise from the operations of Stanford, or
its contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or other persons
acting on its behalf in relation to development of the Property.
This hold harmless Section applies to all damages and claims for
damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the
operations referred to in this Agreement, regardless of whether or
not City prepared, supplied or approved plans or specifications or
both.
In addition to the foregoing, Stanford agrees to pay all
coste, expenses, resultant charges, and damages, including but not
limited to attorney's fees, incurred by or imposed upon City as a
result of any litigation attacking this Agreement or any aspect of
the Project.
City agrees to and shall hold Stanford, its officers,
agents, employees and representatives~ harmless and shall defend
and inde.~tJlify Stanford from liability for damages or claims arising
out of the wrongful or negligent acts of City in the perfonnance of
its obligations under this Agreement, provided, howeve:c, that
nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to allow damages
against City for breach of this Agreement or as otherwise limited
by Section 12.
In the event a claim is filed with either party for which
indemnification is cla~ under this paragraph, the party seeking
indemnification shall give notice to the indemnifying party of the
full particulars of the claim promptly after learning of same. The
party seeking indemvification shall not settle such a claim after
a demand for indemnification has been wade without the consent of
the indemnifying party, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
16. Notices. All notices required or provided for under
this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered
personally or by overnight courier service or sent by certified or
registered ~ail, return receipt requested. Any notice given by:
(i) personal delivery, (ii) recognized overnight national courier
service, or { ii.i) registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, shall be deemed to have been duly given and received
upon receipt. Notices to the parties shall be addressed as
follows:
26 of 35
..... --------------------------------------~-----~---------~--~-~ •
City:
with a copy to:
Stanford:
with a copy to:
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
•
Palo Alto, California 94301
City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, california 94301
Stanford Management Company
2770 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Office of the General Counsel
Stanford University
105 En.cina Hall
Stanford1 California 94305
Any notice so delivered shall be effective upon the date of
personal delivery or, in the case of mailing, or~ the date of
delivery as shown on the U.S. Postal Service return receipt. Any
party may change its address for notice by giving ten (10) days'
notice of such change in the manner provided for in th:is paragraph.
17 . Term of Agreement .. The term of this Agreement shall
commence as of the Effective Date, and shall continue for fifteen
(15) years from the Effective Date or until earlier terminated by
mutual consent of the parties or as otherwise provided by this
Agreement. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall
have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect
to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination
or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions
of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such termination or
with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as
surviving this Agreement.
18. Miscellaneous.
(a) Construction~ As used in this Agreement, and
as the context may require, the singular includes the plural and
vice versa, and the masculine gender includes the feminine and
neuter and vice versa~
(b) severability.. If any term, provision, covenant
or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void,
27 of 35
970704 lac 0031~98
• •
or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be
affected to the extent the remaining provisions are not rendered
impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of
this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of
exactions and consideration referenced in Section 9 of this
Agreement are essential elements of this Agreement and City would
not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and
therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be
invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null
and void and of no force and effect whatsoever as of the date such
determination becomes final.
{c) Recor4ation4 Upon execution of this Agreement~
City shall promptly ar:::ange for its recordation as provided in
Government Code section 65868.5. Failure to record this Agreement
within the time period provided for in Section 65868.5 shall not
affect its validity or enforceability ~~vngst the Parties hereto.
(d) Captions and References. The captions of the
Sections and subsections of this Agreement are solely for
convenience of re~erence, and shall be disregarded in the
construction and interpretation of this Agreement.
(e) Time. T~e is of the essence of this Agreement
and of each and every term and condition hereof, provided that
failure by City to give notices at the times specified in this
Agreement during a periodic review or special review. or
termination or modification proceeding shall not affect the
validity of such proceedings if Stanford has actual notice of such
proceedings.
(f) AsSignment.
(1) Right to Assign. Stanford shall have the
right to sell, transfer or assign the Property, in whole or in part
(provided that no such partial transfer shall be permdtted to cause
a violation of the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section
66410, ~ ~.), to any person or entity at any time during the
te~~ of this Agreement; provided:
{i) Concurrently with any such sale, transfer
or assignment, or within ten {10) business days thereafter,
Stanford shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer or
assignment and shall provide City with an executed agreement, in a
for.m reasonably acceptable to City, by the purchaser, transferee or
assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or
assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and
obligations of Stanford under this Agreement.
28 of 35
9707041ac 0031S98
• •
(ii) No sale, transfer or assignment of any
right or interest under this Agreement shall be made without the
prior written consent of the City Council, which consent may not be
unreasonably withheld.
Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee
or assignee to execute the agreement required by subparagraph (I)
above, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such
purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the benefits of this
Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee
until and unless such agreement is executed~
{2) Release of Stanford. Notwithstanding any
sale, transfer or assignment, Stanford shall continue to be
obligated under this Agreement unless Stanford is given a release
in writing by City, which release will be provided by City upon the
full satisfaction by Stanford of all the following conditions:
equitable interest
transferred.
( i)
in
Stanford no
the portion
longer
of the
has a legal or
Property being
{ii) Stanford is not then in default and
default proceedings have not been commenced by City under this
Agreement.
(iii) Stanford has provided City with the
notice and executed agreement required under Section lS(f) (1) {ii)
above a
(iv) The purchaser, transferee or assignee
provides City with security reasonably satisfactory to City to
secure performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
Nothing contained in this Section 18{f) shall prevent a
transfer of the Property, or any portion thereof, to an
institutional lender as a result of a foreclosure or deed in lieu
of foreclosure and any lender acquiring the Property, or any
portion thereof, as a result of foreclosure or a deed in li~u of
foreclosure shall take such Property subject to the rights and
obligations of Stanford under this Agreement; provided, however, in
no event shall such lender be liable for any defaults or monetary
obligations of Stanford arising prior to acquisition of title to
the Property by such lender and provided further in no event shall
any such lender or its successors or assigns be entitled to a
building permit or occupancy certificate for any portion of the
Project for which any fees required by this Agreement have not been
paid to City or for any portion of the Project for which any other
obligation under this Agreement remains unperformed.
29 of 35
970704 lac 0031 !198
• •
Subject to the provisions of this Section 18 (f) , the
burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits
of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors-in-interest to the
parties to this Agreement.
(g) Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this
Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly
authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of
a waiver is sought. No waiver of any right or remedy in respect of
any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any right or
remedy in respect of any other occurrence or event.
(h) G9verning State Law. This Agreement shall be
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair
language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes
of the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that
a.1'.biguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not
be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been
represented and having fully participated in the negotiation of
this Agreement.
(i) Certificate of Compliance. At any time during
the term of this Agreement, any lender or other party r~y request
any party to this Agreement to confirm that to the best of such
party's knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement or if
defaults do exist, to describe the nature of such defaults. Each
party hereby agrees to provide a certificate to such lender or
other party within ten (10) business days of the request therefor.
The failure of any p?rty to provide the requested certificate
within such ten (10) business day period shall not constitute a
confirmation that to the best of such party's knowledge, no
defaults exist under this Agreement.
(j) Mortgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree
that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Stanford in any
manner, at Stanford's sole discretion, from encumbering the
Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any
mortgage~ deed of trust or C·ther security device securing financing
with respect to the Property. The City acknowledges that the
lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement
interpretations and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet
with Stanford and representatives of such lenders to consider any
such request for interpretation. City will not unreasonably
withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation provided
such interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of
this Agreement. Any MOrtgagee of the Property shall be entitled to
the following rights and privileges:
30 of 35
910104 be 0031591
• •
< 1) Neither entering into this Agreement nor
a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish
or i.JIIpair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Property
made in good faith and for value.
(2) The ~~rtgagee of any mortgage or deed
of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which
Mortgagee, has submitted a .req-...test in writing to the City in the
manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to
receive written notification from City of any default by Stanford
1n the performance of Stanford's obligations under this Agreement.
{3) If City timely receives a request from
a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to
Stanford under the terms of this Agreement~ City shall provide a
copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within twenty (20) days of
sending the notice of default to the Stanford. The Mortgagee shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during
the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement.
( 4) kJ.y ~J.O:::-tgagee who comes into possession
of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of
the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure,
shall ~ake the Property, or part thereoff subject to the terms of
this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such MOrtgagee
be liable fer any defaults or monetary obligations of Stanford
arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such
Mortgagee and provided further in no event shall any such Mortgagee
or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building permit or
occupancy certificate until all fees due under this Agreement
(relatiug to the portion of the Property acquired J)y auch
MOrtgagee} have been paid to the City and until any other default
has been cured.
{k} Force M@jeure. Neither party shall be deemed
to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of
its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods,
earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar
hostiliti~s, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the
party's control (including the party's employment force), court
actions (such as restraining order or injunctions), or other causes
beyond the party's control. If any such events shall occur, the·
term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party
of any of its obligations hereunder shall be extended for the
period of time that such events prevented such performance.
(1) Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth
and contains the entire Q~derstanding and agreement of the parties.
There are no oral or written representations, understandings,
undertakings, or agreements which are not contained or expressly
31 of 35
910704 a.: 0031 "'
• •
referred to herein, and any such representations, understandings,
or agreements are supe~seded by this Agreement. No evidence of any
such representations, understandings, or agreemer..ts shall be
admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature relating to the
terms or conditions of this Agreement, its interpretation, or
breach~
(m) No Third PartY Benefici&;-iea.. This Agreement
is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the
parties and their successors and assigns, including mortgagees. No
other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement~
(n} Counterparts~ This Agreement rray be executed
by the parties in counterparts~ which counterparts shall be
construed together and have the sa.rne effect as if all of the
parties had executed the sa..rne i.nstnunent.
{o) Juri~gictl:on and Venue. Any action at law or
in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by an party
hereto for the parpose of enforcing, construing or determining the
validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and
tried in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of
California, and the parties waive all provisions of law providing
for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.
(p) Further Actions. Each of the parties shall
cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to
the extent contemplated in the perfor.mance of all obligations under
this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this
Ag~eement. upon the request of either party at any time, the other
party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if
reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments
and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary
under the terms of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the
transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
(q) Authority to Execute. The person or persons
executing this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the
authority to bind Stanford to the performance of its obligations
hereunder.
(r) Administrative Appeal. Whenever in the
Applicable Rules or Project Approvals any requirement or action by
Stanford is made subject to the approval or satisfaction however
expressed, of ~"lY entity, other than City, including City-retained
experts (referred to in this subsection as a "third party~), such
condition shall not be interpreted as providing the third party the
right to make any final decision other than as may be vested in it
by law other than the Applicable Rules. Where a third party has no
32 of 35
970704 lac 0031598
• •
right vested in it by la~ other than the Applicable Rules to make
a'final decision, a condition requiring approval or satisfaction of
such third party, however expressed, shall mean that the third
party shall provide, as appropriate1 advice, consultation a
recommendation and/or an initial decision regarding the condition.
The actual deter.mination in such case will be made by the official
or entity of City required or authorized to make such determination
in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Appeals from determinations made by City officials
or entities shall be made in accordance with applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(s) Exhibits.. The following exhibits to which
reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated herein
in their entirety:
Exhibit A -· Real Property Legal Description
Exhibit B -CEQA Findings
Exhibit C -Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Exhibit D -Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Exhibit E -Conditions of. Approval
Exhibit F -Project Description
Exhibit G -BMR Letter of Agreement
Exhibit H-1 -Apartment Rental Management Plan
Exhibit H-2 -El Camino Park Current and Amended
Lease Area Map and Train Depot Lease Area Legal
Description
Exhibit H-3 -Special Condition Area •a•
Exhibit I -Phasing Schedule
Exhibit J -Development Agreement OrdinancP No_
If the Recorder refuses to record any Exhibit, the City Clerk may
replace it with a single sheet bearing the Exhibit identification
letter, stating the title of the Exhibitf the reason it is not
being recorded, and that the origir1al, certified by the City Clerk,
is in the possession of the City Clerk and will be reattached to
the original when it is returned by the Recorder to the City Clerk.
33 of 35
9707041ac 0031$98
• •
{t) Eisnature Pages. For convenience, the parties
may execute and ac~,owledge this Agreement on separate signature
pages which, when attached hereto, shall constitute this as one
complete Agreement.
{u) Precedence. In the event of any conflict or
inconsistency among this Agreement, the Project Approvals and the
Applicable Ru~. a a, the provisions of this Agreement shall have
precedence and shall control over the conflicting or inconsistent
provisions; and the provisions of the Project Approvals shall have
precedence and shall control over the Applicable Rules.
(v) Recordation. Whenever recordation is required
or may be required by either party, City shall be responsible for
recordation. If City fa.ils to record a document when required,
Stanford may, but is not obligated to, record the document and by
doing so Stanford does not assume the duties or obligations of City
established by this subsection or the Development Agreement Act nor
does it waive any right i.t may have to compel City to properly
perfot~ its duties and obligations. The failure of City to record
or to properly record this Agreement or any other document as
provided herein ;·1ha11 not affect or limit in any way Stanford's
rights to enforce this Agreement and to rely upon it.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II II
II
II
II
II
//
II
II
II
II
II II
II
II
II
970704 lac 0031598
34 of 35
..---------------------------~------~---~~---~-------·---• •
(~) Referendum. If the Ordinance approving this
Agreement is sub~itted to a referendum by the City Council on its
own motion or by a certified sufficient petition of the electorate,
pursuant to Article VI, section 3 of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Ordinance shall be suspended and inoperative until
approved by the voters.
Cit)"" Clerk
APPJlOVBD AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
APPllOVBD AS TO COWTBHT:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
this Agreement has been executed by
year first above written.
CITY OP PALO ALTO
Mayor
STANPORD
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
35 of 35
.... -------------------------------·--·------------------• •
CBRT:IPICATB OP ACKH01fLBDGIIBNT
(Civil Code § 1189)
__________________________ ) STATB OF
COUNTY OF
) ss .. _________________________ )
On • before me, , a
notary public in and for said County~ personally appeared
, personally known to me
~--------~----------------~----~--~~~ (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s} whose narne(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they execut~ed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
hisiher/their signature{s) on the instrument the person\s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal,
• •
CBRTIPICA'l'B OP ACDOII'LBDGIIIDJT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF ____________________________ )
)ss.
C:(lUNTY OF __________________________ )
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, per~onally appeared
----------~-------------------------------' personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactOr)' evidence} to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity{ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
.,.
I
I
•
I
• •
CBRT:::PICATB OP ACDOWLBDGKBNT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF __________________________ )
)ss.
COUNTY OF _________________________ )
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
----------~----------~----~--~----~~' personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and. acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
EXHIBIT
ORDINANCE It 4433
FILM ROLL it
• •
April 16. 1997
BKF Project No. 896060
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• EXHIEIT "A"
(page 1 of 3)
All that real property situate in the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa
Clara! State of California, being the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland
Stanford Junior University and The State of California, and as shown en the
Tentative Map and adjacent lands, a plat of vvhich is attached hereto and made a
part hereof as .. Exhibit Et<, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of the northwesterly line of the proposed Sand
Hill Road right of way line as shown on said Tentative Map, with the City of
t\~enlo Park and the City of Palo Alto city limit line, last said line also being at or
near San Francisquito Creek; thence northeasterly along said proposed
nonhwester!y line of Sand Hill Road to a point on the southwesterly line of Parcel
1 as sho'N:t on the Parcel ~J,ap filed July 151 1970 in Book 270 of Maps at pages
34 and 35, Official Records of Santa Clara County; thence north'Nesterly along
said south·,·:ester!y line of Parcel 1 to its intersection with said Menlo Park and
Palo p.,;to city· !imit line (at or near San Francisqulto Creek); thence in a general ..
northerly direction along said city limit line to lts intersection with the
southwesterly right of \vay line of El Camino Real; thence southeasterly along
said southwesterly line of El Camino Rea!, 50 feet; thence northeasterly, at right
angles to last said southwester!:;· !ine, to a point on the northeasterly line of El
Camino Real; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly line of El Camino
Real to its intersection with the northvvesterly line of University Avenue; thence
southwesterly: at right angles to said El Camino Real, to a point on the
southv;esterly right of way line of El Camino Real; thence northwesterly along
said southwesterly line of Et Camino Real to its intersection with the
southeasterly line of the proposed Quarry Road right of way line; . theryce
southwesterly and southerly along said proposed southeasterly and easterly line
of Quarry Road to a point 50 feet south of the southerly righ:f of way line of
proposed Vineyard Lane; thence westerly, at right angles to the easterly line of
said proposed Quarry Road, to a point on the westerly line of said Quarry Road;
thence northerly, northwesterly and "vesterly along the southerly return at the
proposed intersection of Vineyard Lane and Quarry Road to a point on the
proposed southedy line of Vineyard Lane; thence along said proposed southerly
line of Vineyard Lane to its intersection with the southeasterly line of the
proposed Sand Hill Road right of \Nay line; thence southwesterly along said
propo~ed southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road to its intersection with the existing
northeasterly right of way line of Pasteur Drive; thence southeasterly along said
northeasterly line to its intersection \Nith the westerly iine of Welch Road; thence
southerly along said VJesterly line of Welch Road to its intersection with the
existing City of Palo Alto City lirnit line, said line also being the most southerly
right of way line of existing Pasteur Drive; thence westerly along said City limit
line and existing southerl~l line of Pasteur Drive to its intersection with the
Page 1 of 2
' • • EXHIBIT "a"
(page 2 of 2)
proposed southerly right of way line of Pasteur Drive, said line also being the
proposed City of Palo Atto City limit line; thence westerly along said proposed
southerly line of Pasteur Drive and along said proposed City limit line to its
intersection with the southeasterly line of the proposed Sand Hill Road right of
way tine: thence southwesterly along said proposed southeasterly line of Sand
Hill Road to its intersection with the City of Menlo Park and the City of Palo Alto
City limit line, last said line also being at or near San Francisquito Creek; thence
northwesterly a1ong said City limit line to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This description was prepared under my direction.
By:--...::;.g_~~--_., -
Davis R. Thresht P.L.S. No. 6868
License Expires: 9/30/2000
Dated: G.-<.5-97
Page 2 of 2
•,
•
, ...
c:AN FRANCJS.QUITO
CREEK ,,
'-...""----~-~ ... rtf ....... ~·
~#
/
\'\-\ G··
.\.0-
.. ,~ v·
....;.~·
, .-") ·. (?:>\ ,..-:, \, ... ?-\_
\ >> (
\,
\
PROJECT OESCRtPTtON LIMITS
\
pJ
(')
)>
3:. z 0
XI rn (!.
UNlVERSlTY AVENUE
EXHIBIT KE"
to Exhibit "A"
(page 3 of 3)
I ;!i -=-• I ! : ~.-~ t•ol dJJl
IJ
~~
J!
Q.
<!(Col)
i ... ;.
~-
~§> ~~~~
5 ... ~~ en~ !I
co 4 w «~c ... {/) 5 u~ .,. ~a:t; oo a:u.. Q.
I •
~ ;;
e :J ...
890060
1 .. 1
• •
BXJ!IBI'I' "B•
CEQA FINDINGS
(Exhibits "B" through "F" of the CEQA Resolution)
I .
'
• •
BXBIBIT B
ITAJflOJU) !fBST APARTMENT PROJECT
COURCIL Pr.NDIHGS CONCERNING MITIGATION OP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND CONSIDERATIONS OP ALTERNATIVES
The City council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") has read
and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR")
prepared for the Stanford West Apartments project. The EIR has
been prepared for five projects including the Stanford West
Apartments~ Stanford West Senior Housing, Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion, Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway
ImprovE?..ments { "SHRE/RRI") projects, referred to collectively herein
as-the HSand Hill'Corridor projectS 1 11 and the Pasteur Drive Parcel
Annexation project~ These projects are described in Chapter 3 of
the EIR, and include, as approved by the Council, the changes and
revisions described in Chapter 11 and in the "Final Summary of
Project Changes" made a part of the EIR by the certi fy:lng
resolution.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the
Council has considered each environmental impact of the Stanford
West Apartments project identified in the EIR, and each of the
mitigation measures and project alternatives evaluated in the EIR.
The Council's detailed findings for each significant
environmental impact or potentially significant environmental
impact identified in the EIR are set forth below. Each significant
or potentially significant environmental impact identified in the
EIR is listed in bold. Those mitigation measures adopted or
partially adopted by the Council are also numbered in bold. The
Council's reasons for rejection or partial rejection of certain
mitigation measures and reasons for selection among alternative
potential mitigation measures are described where appropriate.
' The Council's reasons for rejecting specific alternatives to
the project identified in the EIR are stated in Part II of these
findings.
l
970702 lac 0031 $87
• •
PART I
CBA1fGBS M1J) MITIGATION IIBASTJ'RBS ADOPTED TO REDUCE IMPACTS
j , 1 LNIJ) u..u
t.l-5 x.pleaentation of the proposed projects, in conjunction
with cu.ulative development within the Sand Hill Road Corridor,
would reault in a change in character in the area.
The EIR concludes that there are no feasible mitigation
measures available which will substantially reduce the identified
significant land use impacts and that these impacts are therefore
unavoidable.
The Council also finds that due to the magnitude of change in
use a.nd character of the existing vacant Stanford West Apartments
site, the identified impacts are significant. The conditions for
approval of the Stanford West Apartments project, howeve!,
incorpor·ate a number of mitigation measures which will lessen the
overall severity of these impacts by reducing visual impacts,
preserving grassland habitat area, protecting the San Francisquito
Creek riparian zone from intrusion and providing for planting of
new and replacement trees on the project site. These measures are
discussed more fully in sections of these findings pertaining to
mitigation of visual, transportation, noise and biological impacts.
Despite these measures, however, the impact remains significant.
4, 2 VISUAL QUALITY /LIGHT AND GLARE
4. 2-1 The proposed projects would result in major ·visual
changes within the Sand Hill Road corridor for viewers traveling on
Sand Hill Road..
Mitigation measure 4.2-1(b), as revised at p. 14-3 of the EIR,
requires that final landscaping plans provide for large scale,
shrub/understory planting between Sand Hill Road and apartment
parking lots to augment screening of the site from Sand Hill ~oad.
In addition to adoption of mitigation measure 4. 2-1 (b),
changes were made in the project design during the environmental
review process which partly implemented recommended mitigation
measure 4.2-l{a) ~ Specifically r:hanges discussed at pp. 11~1 -
11-5 of the FEIR were made in the project design to reduce impacts
on Governor's Lane and to open a potential view corridor. The
project as approved, however, will include construction of a child
care facility in the area formerly designated for construction of
these apartment buildings. The child care facility will not
significantly impact the Governor's Lane corridor, but will reduce
the view corridor benefit in this area.
2
9'1070l&K OOJI Sl7
• •
The Council finds that the foregoing changes made to the
project and the adoption of mitigation measure 4.2-l(b) will lessen
somewhat the project's impact on views from the Sand Hill Road
corridor, but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant
level. The adopted changes and mitigation measure, in conjunction
with other features of the project design, will somewhat reduce the
visual impact of development and loss of existing views by
preserving limited open space views along Sand Hill Road and by
screening buildings with foliage, thereby reducing the viewer's
perception of a continuous wall of development. These measures,
however, will not overcome the major unavoidable change in visual
character and loss of views of open space and the San Francisquito
Creek riparian area which would necessarily result from any
substantial development on the site. This impact therefore remains
aignifieant. The Council also finds that it is not desirable to
further mitigate the visual impacts by redesigning the project to
create additional view corridors as reco;r.rnended in mitigation
measure 4.2-l(a). Given that the developed portions of the project
site will be extensivelY screened from Sand Hill Road by foliaae as
provided in mitigation ineasure 4.2-l(b), the actua.l visual benefit
of additional view corridors would be slight. Redesign of the
project to include view corridors would also resu.l t in loss .of
additional apartment units and/or loss of the child ca:re facilities
required by the Development Agreement for the project and Condition
14.A of the project conditions of approval. In view of the City's
existing severe shortage of rental housing units and need for
child-care services} neither of these losses is acceptable as a
tradeoff for the slight visual benefit of additional view
corridors.
The Council finds tr~t the Stanford West Apartment project is
consistent with the Palo Alto Compx:ehensive Plan's Scenic Highways
section as amended. The Council finds that the location of the
required covered parking in Sand Hill Road's twenty-five foot
special setback will~ because of the design of the parking areas
and the extensive amount. of existing and proposed ·-landscaping, be
compatible with the scenic highway designation of Sand Hill Road.
The EIR identified the need for a stopping place for the public to
use to view the scenic enviroP .. ment. Provision of a roadside
stopping place would be incompatible with the arterial design of
Sand Hill Road. Main Street will allow members of the public
opportunities to use stopping places to view the area, including
the hi,storic Governor~ s Lane and the riparian backdrop of San
Francisquito Creek. Views of Governor~ s Lane and the riparian
backdrop will also be possible for those traveling along Sand Hill
Road, especially at locations west of the intersections of Sand
Hill Road with Vineyard Lane and with Pasteur Drive.
4.2-3 Views of pedestrians and bicyclists on the pedestrian
path/bikeway from the creek crossing to Sand Bill Road would be
greatly altered from views of open space to a developed, urbanized
environment.
Mitigation measure 4.2-3 provides that the final landscape
plans for the project shall include sufficient density, height, and
3
970702 Ia.; 0031 S81
---------------------~~~·-
• •
proximity of proposed tree plantings to the east of the pedestrian
path to mintmize views to project buildings in the long term. Tree
plantings shall be designed to achieve canopy closure above .and to
the east of the pedestrian path.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the project's impact on views from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge,
but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
The required landscaping will substantially screen views of the
Stanford West Senior Housing project to the east and therefore
provide some visual relief from the overall change of visual
character of the area. This measure will ootf however, eliminate
the substantial visual impact associated with development of the
Stanford West Apartments project; and the impact therefore remains
significant.
4 .. 2 ... 8 Visual disturbance from construction of the proposed
projects could have temporary adverse visual impacts.
Mitigation measure 4.2-8 req-t..1ires that on-site staging and
storage of construction equipment and rraterials should be ~~nimized
to reduce visual disturbance during construction. Equipment ~nd
material storage that does occur on-site should be visually
screened. Graded areas ~hould be watered regularly to minimize
fug·itive dust. Construction should be st.aged and scheduled to
minimize the duration of disturbance in each affected viewshed.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the adverse visual impact of project construction, but
will not reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The
adopted mitigation measure will limit the duration and visibility
of construction equipment and grading activities on the site, but
will not eliminate the signi>:icant visual impact necessarily
associated with major construction activities on the site. This
impact therefore remains signifi.cant.
4.2-9 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumulative
development in the Sand Hill Road Corridor1 could adversely affect
the visual character of the corridor for viewers traveling on Sand
Bill Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-9 recommends that mitigation measures
4.2-l(a-1) be implemented for all the Sand Hill Road Corridor
Projects, including the Stanford West Apartments project.
The Council has adopted or partially adopted the provisions of
project-specific mitigation measures 4.2-l{a}-(1) pertaining to the
Stanford West Apartments project~ except as noted in connection
with the findings for Impact 4.2-1. The Council finds that the
adoption of these mitigation measures will lessen the projectis
contribution to cumulative visual impacts from development of the
Sand Hill Road corridor for reasons previously stated in relation
to each adopted mitigation measure, but that these measures
collectively will not reduce the project's contribution to
cumulative visual impacts to a less than significant. level.
4
970702lac 0031587
• •
The Council has adopted or partially adopted the provisions of
mitigation measures 4.2-l(a)-(1) as they pertain to the Stanford
West Apartments project. The Council finds that the adoption of
these mitigation measure will lessen the project's contribu·i· .. ion to
cumulative visual impacts from development of the Sand Hill Road
corridor for reasons previously stated in relation to each adopted
mitigation measure, but that these measures collectively will not
reduce the project's contribution to cumulative visual impacts to
a less than significant level.
The additional project-specific mitigation measures
recommended in mitigation measure 4.2-9 have been adopted,
partially adopted, or rejected as stated in the findings for the
Stanford West Senior Housing, Stanford Shopping Center expansion
and Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements
projects. To the extent these measures have been adopted, they
collectively will reduce but not eliminate the significant adverse
clli~ulative visual impacts of the Sand Hill Corridor projects. This
cumulative impact therefore rero3ins significant.
The Council recognizes that future development, to the extent
allowed in the Sand Hill Corridor~ will continue to add to the
significant cumulative visual impacts associated with the approved
projects.
4 .. 2-11 The proposed projects, i:c conjunction ·with cumulative
development, could adversely alter views from the
pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing San Francisquito Creek to Menlo
Park.
Mitigation measure 4.2-11 provides that the applicant shall
provide landscape screening cf the Children's Health Council
facilities from the bike path.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project's contribution to cumulative impacts on
views from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge, but will not reduce the
project's contribution nor the cumulative impact to a less than
significant level. The required landscaping will substantially
screen views of the Children's Health Council, therefore redueing
tl..E;. amount of buildings and paved area immediately visible from the
bridge crossing are.a. The visual screening, however, will not
reduce the visual impact of new development associated directly
with the Stanford West Apartments and resulting change in visual
character of the area site. The cumulative impact therefore
remains significant.
4.2-13 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumulative
development, could generate light and glare from buildings and
roadways that could have adverse effects on nearby residents and
on-coming drivers along Sand Hill Road. ·
Mitigation measure 4.2-13 provides that interior and exterior
light sources associated with all of the approved Sand Hill Road
Corridor projects, including the Stanford West Apartments project,
5
• •
shall be shielded or directed in such a manner as to prevent
visibility of the light sources and to eliminate light spillover
beyond the perimeter of the proposed project. Specific measures
recommended in accordance with section 18.64.030 of the Palo Alto
MUnicipal Code include the following:
(a) Exterior light fixtures on the housing buildings should
be mounted no higher than 15 feet at the rear of the buildings.
(b} Lighting of the building exterior and parking lot should
be of the lowest intensity and energy use ade~1ate for its purpose.
(c) Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated
signs, should be avoided.
(d) Timing devices should be considered for exterior and
interior liahts in order to minimize light glare at night without jeopardizin~ security.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the project's contribution to potential cumulative light and glare
impacts to insignificance. This measure has also been incorpora~ed
into the conditions of approval for other approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects. The adopted mitigation measure will have the
effect of eliminating substantial spillover of light from each
individual project and will therefore lessen the potential
cumulative impact to insignificance.
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.3·1 Xmplementation of the proposed projects would result in
damaging effects on important historic and/or prehistoric
archaeological resources.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(b) requires that prior to development
the applicant shall conduct a data recovery program ··on all areas in
which construction is believed to have a potential to result in
significant archaeological impacts. The program shall consist of
an initial phase of intensive subsurface archaeological testing
meeting minimum standards specified in the EIR. Significant
resources encountered shall be subject to recovery, evaluation and
preservation as provided in mitigation measure 4.3-l(c). All work
shall be subject to review and monitoring by an independent
archaeologist engaged by the City. Following construction,
-mitigation measure 4.7-3(f) shall be implemented; this measure
requires that mowing instead of discing of grassland areas be used
to provide necessary fire clearances, thus avoiding damage to
near-surface artifacts. The Stanford West Apartment management
shall post ~igns and enforce rJles to minimize disruption of the
archaeological area by residents or others.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(c) requ:i.res manual excavation and
recovery of archaeological resources from any areas encountered
during construction which are determined to hold important
archaeological resources and requires the recovery, evalt1ation and
6
970702 lle 003 i 587
• •
preservation of these resources. The measure also provides for
ongoing monitoring of construction activities in areas potentially
containing archaeological resources and for preparation of further
~~tailed pl~~ to ensure protection and recovery of any significant
resources encountered in such areas. The plans shall include (a)
provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis, and curation; (b)
identification and coordination with most-likely Native American
descendants concerning monitoring and reburial of Native American
remains, if any are encountered; (c) plans for preparation of
technical reports; (4) analysis and preservation of artifacts and
documentation and analysis of non-recoverable site features. All
of the foregoing shall be performed in accordance with current
scientific and professional standards.
Mitigation measure 4.3·l(d), as modified in p. 14-9 of the
EIR, provides that any mechanical excavation for underground
utility lines in Level 1 avoidance areas shall be conducted under
the supet\ri.sion of an archaeologist. If mechanical excavation is
determined to pose a threat to archaeological resources, excavation
will be conducted ~anually. Removed soil shall be screened and any
artifacts recovered will be analyzed, reported and curated as
provided in mitigation measure 4.3-l{c).
Mitigation measure 4. 3-1 (e) limits the placement of paved
bicycle or pedestrian paths or light-duty roads and specifies
additional measures to ensure that no impacts will result from
placement or construction of these paths or roads in areas likely
to contain archaeological resources.
Mitigation measure 4.3-1(£) provides that construction
activities involving substantial ground disturbance (greater than
12e in depth) near any known archaeological site shall be subject
to monitoring. This measure also applies to ~11 construction in
all Level 1 archaeological areas which have not been shown to
contain significant resources during initial Phase 1 testing. The
discovery of archaeological resources during monitoring will
trigger evaluation and recovery of the resources, if appropriate,
in accordance with mitigation measures 4.3-l(g) and 4.3-l(c).
~tigation measure 4.3-1(g} provides that if previously
unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction,
work shall cease in the immediate area until qualified
archaeologists assess the significance of the resources and make
mitigation recommendations (e.g.1 manual excavation of the
immediate area), if warranted.
Mitigation measure 4~3-l(h) requires the applicant and
contractors to comply with the requirements of Section 7050.S(b} of
the California Health and Safety Code if possible Native American
burials or remains are found during construction. This code
section requires that a Native American Most Likely Descendant
(detennined in consultation with the Native American Heritage
Commdssion) be notified within 24 hours and arrangements made for
appropriate reburial. This and related sections of the Public
7
91070llae 0031 ,17
~----------------------------------------------------------· • •
Resources Code also provide that remains shall be protected from
further construction work or vandalism pending reburial.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures,
taken together with the project design, will lessen the project's
impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to a
less than significant level. The adopted mitigation measures are
collectively intended to supplement the principal fonn of
mitigation incorporated into the design of the project, which is
physical avoidance and in-site preservation of archaeological
resources. The site plans for the Stanford West Aparbments project
have taken into account the known presence of substantial
archaeological resources on portions of the site nearest to San
Francisquito Creek. No development is approved in areas presently
known to contain important archaeological resources. Within the
areas believed to have a potential to contain important
archaeological resources {the Level 1 avoidance zone) , development
of buildings and landscaping is limited to approximately 52~000
square feet. In n~st areas the site plans provide a buffer (Level
2 avoidance zone) between development and knowc or probable
archaeological resources. Within the Level 1 and Level 2 avoidance
areas subject to developm\=nt, the adcpted mitigation measures
p.rovide for complete recovery, preserva+:ion and study of all
significant resou~ces encountered in accordance with current
scientific and professional standards, thus ensuring that there
will be no loss of scientific or historical value of these
resources. Mitigation Ir'.easure 4.3-l(h) also provides for reburial
of Native A.-nerican remains, if anyt encountered during development.
Because adopted mitigation measures 1ATill avoid any net loss of
historic or scientific value of presently uriknown important
archaeological resources found on the site~ the net impact of the
project will not be significant.
Rejected Mitigation Measure
In approving the project, the Council has not adopted
alternate mitigation measure 4.3-l(a) discussed in the EIR.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(a) would have required the project to be
redesigned if feasible to avoid all areas designated as Level 1
avoidance areas and to reduce development in Level 2 avoidance
areas. A revised site plan shown as Figure 4 . 3-2 in the EIR
indicates that implementation would rF:~ult in elimination of
approximately 80 residential units from the project.
The Council finds that mitigation measure 4.3-l(a) is
infeasible as it relates to impacts to archaeological resources on
the site because the measure would eliminate housing units from the
project without resulting in any substantial reduction in net
overall impacts of the project on archaeological resources9 There
is disagre~ent between Stanford's archaeologists and the City's
EIR consultant~ as to the extent of probable significant
archaeolog1ca1 resources on the site. Stanford's archaeologist
believes that the development plan avoids all areas of known or
probable significant resources. The EIR has taken a more
conservative approach and designated a Level 1 sensitivity area
8
970702 lac 0031 317
• •
which includes additional areas not presently known to conc.ain
significant archaeological resources but which the EIR consultants
believe have a potential to include such resources. The
development plans l~it development (buildings and landscaping) to
approximately 52,000 square feet of area which the EIR identifies
as having the potencial to hold ~portant archaeological resources.
Most or all of this area has been previously subjected to surface
disturbance in the form of agricultural ploughing. Potential
impacts of development in this area and on all other areas of the
site have been reduced to less than significant levels by the
adoption of mitigation measures 4. 3-1 (b)-(h). Because it is
presently uncertain that the development plan vill result in
disturbance of any significant archaeological resources and because
alternate measures are available and have been implemented to
reduce all potential impacts to insignificance~ implementation of
mitigation measure 4.3-l(a) is not necessarJr to avoid significant
impacts on archaeologica.l resources from the project and cannot be
justified in light of the loss of housing units which would result
from implementation of the measure.
4.3-2 Implementation of the proposed projects could result in
loss of t:he Governor's Lane historic landscape feature ..
Mitigation measure 4. 3-2 (a} provides that fencing or other
appropriate protection shall be installed pri.or to construction to
protect Governor's Lane from direct physical impacts to this
historic resource. Existing viable eucalyptus trees in Governor's
Lane shall be preserved; those determined not to be viable may be
removed and replaced with the species being used along the entire
Governor1 s Lane alignment (e.g., Sycamore).
Mitigation measure 4. 3 ·2 (h) .f which is directed at preserving
th.e historical context of Governor's Lane corridor, has been
partially adopted as a condition of project approval. The adopted
provisions (subparagraphs (3} and (4)) of this mdtigation measure
provide that (a) t:he proposed parking lane which·· parallels Sand
Hill Road shall be terminated at the western edge of the Governor's
Lane corridor, thus avoiding intrusion and disruption of the
continuity of the restored Governor's Lane, and (b) that the
pedestrian pathways which bisect the Governor's Lane corridor sBa.ll
be paved using materials consistent with the historical nature of
the corridor (e.g. decomposed granite, cobblestone~ brick, etc.).
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's ~pacts on the Governor's Lane historic feature to a
less than significant level. The effect of these measures will be
to preserve the location, visual impression and existing trees of
this historic landscape feature with a minimum of direct physical
disturbance. Other measures incorporated into the project call for
planting of additional suitable trees to restore and enhance this
historic feature and ensure its permanent retention on the site.
9
970702 lac 0031587
------------~----
• •
Rejected Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures 4.3-l(a) and 4.3-2(b) provide for specific
additional measures to r~:.duce l.mpacts to the Governor's Lane
corridor, specifically (a) portions of buildings which intrude into
the Governor's ::.ane corridor shall be removed; and (b) Main Street
shall be reconfigured the wrap around the northeast~rn terminus of
Governor's Lane. These additional mitigating measures have not
been incorporated into the conditions of approval adopted by the
Council. The Council finds that these additional measures are
infeasible because they cannot be accomplished without substantial
disruption of the proposed development plan and would jeopardize
the project's ability to provide needed child care facilities_
While the residential buildings originally proposed to be
constructed in the Governor's Lane have been relocated, the revised
project plans call for construction of child care facilities in
this area. The child care facilities constitute an essential
element of the approved project. In light of the mitigation
measures which have been adopted, the location of the child care
facilities in this area will not have a significant impact on the
historic value of Governor's Lane. Reconfiguration of Main Street
to fully avoid Governor's Lane would require redesign of t.he
project and would result in unacceptable loss of recreational open
space for tl.Lr: project. These rejected mitigation me2.sures are not
necessary tc:.: reduce impacts on Governor's Lane to less than
significant levels and therefore cannot be justified in terms of
their net overall effects on the project.
4.3~6 ~he proposed projects, in ccnjunction with other
cumulative development projects in the San Prancisquito Creek
drainage, could result in damage or destruction of important
prehistoric ~nd historic cultural resources.
Mitigation measure 4.3-6 recomme~ds that all planning
jurisdictions within the San Francisquito Creek drainage implement
cultural resource testing and data recovery measures, similar to
those described in Mitigation measure 4.3-1 for projects involving
development of sensitive cultural resource sites.
The Council has adopted the recommended mitigation measure ·for
the Stanford West Apartments project and all other approved Sand
Hill Corridor projects. The Council finds that adoption of the
recommended project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the identified cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level and will also lessen the cwnulative ~ct of the
Sand Hill Corridor projects collectively to a less than significant
level.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
any future projects within the City. With respect to cumulative
impacts from future development projects outside of the City, the
Council finds that implementation of the recommended measures is
10
970702 lac 0031S87
• •
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other ptmlic agencies
and that the agencies can and should implement such measures to the
extent feasible. Because the nature and extent of potential
cumulative impact from future projects on archaeological resources
is presf!nt1 y speculative and unknown, and because the extent to
whj.ch other agencies can and will implement the recommended
measures i~ presently unknown, the Council canno·. jetermine at this
time the ext.ent to which the recommendeo mP~.sures will be
tmplemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen or avoid potential cumulative visual impacts. The
Council therefore finds that thi$ cumulative impar,t remains
potentially significant despite the adoption of available
mitigation measures by the City .
•• 4 TRANSPORTATION
4 .. 4-2 Bicycle and/or pedestrian access and safety could be
affected by development of the proposed projects.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2(a) requires that the final design for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Stanford West
Apartments and Senior Housing sites shall be reviewed and approved
by the City's Chief Transportation Official to ensure the
circulaLion system will function as a part of regional or
inter-city bicycle and pedestrian 'onnectiOl.t.i:i.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2 (e) provides that for five years
following project construction, the project applicant will fund an
annual review of reported traffic accident data at the Sand Hill
.R.oad/I-280 interchange to determine whether a significant increase
in bicycle/auto conflicts has occurred. If an increase is
documented, the applicant will work with Caltrans, the City of
Menlo Park and San Mateo County to design and obtain funding for
safety improvements required to minimize these conflicts ...
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's impacts on pedestrian and bicycle travel to
insignificance. The project as proposed includes provisions to
preserve and improve existing bicycle and pedestrian routes through
the project site. The adopted mit:igation measure will ensure that
the final design ensures safe bicycle and pedestrian access to and
through the site to local and regional bicycle and pedestrian
paths, including those being implemented in conjunction with other
elements of the Sand Hill Corridor projects. These measures also
require Stanford to work with responsible agencies to eliminate
safety problems resulting from increased bicycle and vehicle
traffic at the Sand Hill Road/I-280 intersection if such problems
are determined to exist in the future.
4.4-7 Development of the proposed projects could degrade the
level of service of study area intersections, and contribute to
increased intersection delay.
The studies and analysis performed for the EIR demonstrate
that the project, either singly or in conjunction with other
l.l
97070llac 0031 S S1
• •
approved Sand Hill Corridor projects, will not have significant
adverse effects on levels of service at most intersections near the
project site. The EIR concluded, however, that changes and
increases in traffic patterns resulting from the Sand Hill Road
Corridor projects collectively will result in significant adverse
changes in traffic conditions at a total of seven area
iAteraections~ specifically:
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
Bl Camino Real/Page Mill R.oad
Bl camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue
Bl Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
Junipero Serra Blvd./~pine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
Middlefield Road/Willow Roa.d
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
The EIR concludes that traffic from the Stanford West
Apartments project, considered in light of the concurrent approval
of the modified Sand Hill Road Extension, Widening and Related
Roadway Improvements project, will result in significant adverse
changes at a total of four area intersectionst specifically:
Arboretam Road/Galvez Street
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cr.uz Avenue
~1iddlt:,field AvenueiWillow Road
'111e conditions of approval nevertheless require the applicant.
to contribute to all of the following mitigation measures.
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(a) provides
that the applicant shall install a traffic signal or other
appropriate traffic control device (s) at the intersection of
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street, and shall be required to pay the full
cost of the improvement. This measure shall be implemented when
the intersection satisfies appropriate signal: warrants as
determined by the Chief Transportation Official. In the event that
~he City and the applicant determine that use of a traffic circle
or •roundabout• will provide for the same or better LOS and safety
as a traffic signal, the traffic circl~ may be constructed at·the
applicant's expense instead of a traffic signals or other
traditional traffic control device(s).
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road: Mitigation measure 4.4-7 (b)
provides that the applicant shall contribute a fair share of the
costs of the following planned improvements:
9'7010llae 0031 SS7
Add a southbound right turn lane.
Add a westbound right turn lane.
Add a northbound right turn lane, and extend the
westbound left turn lane by 100 feet.
12
• •
These measures should be implem.anted when the intersection
approaches LOS F, as evaluated through periodic monitoring to be
carried out by the applicant on behalf of the City.
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue: Mitigation measure 4 • 4 .. 7 (c)
provides that the applicant shall contribute a fair share to the
following improvements to this intersection mandated by the Menlo
Park General Plan:
Widen Sand Hill Road to .:~nd second eastbound left turn
lane.
Widen Sand Hill Road to add second westbound left turn
lane.
Modify signal phasing.
The applicant shall als-o pay the costs of installing an
excl.usive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Santa Cruz
Avenue and providing dual left turn la.nes on both the northbound
and soutriliound Santa Cruz Avenue approaches.
Conditions of approval 1. c and 12 for the Sand Hill Road
Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project, as adopted by
condition of approval 2. h for this project, provide that the
applicant shall advance funds to pay the full costs of these
improvements if the City of Menlo Park and/or the County of San
Mateo, w~th respect to any improvements within that jurisdiction,
enters into an agreement to reimburse the applicant for costs in
excess of its fair share. If no reimbursement agreement is
adopted, the applicant shall pay its fair share based on traffic
attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor projects~ L~lementation of
this mitigation measure will not occur until approvals are obtained
from the City of Menlo Park and/or the County of San Mateo, as
applicable. ·
Junipero Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenye: Mitigation
measure 4.4-7(d) requires the applicant to pay a fair share of the
costs of the following improvements to the Junipero Serra
Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenu~ intersection mandated by
the Menlo Park General Plan or recommended in the EIR: ·
Widen northbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
Install an additional southbound left-turn lane.
Conditions of approval 1. c and 12 for the Sand Hill Road
Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project, as adopted by
condition of approval 2.h for this project, provide that the
applicant shall advance funds to pay the full costs of these
improvements if the City of Menlo Par.k and/or the County of San
Mateo~ as applicable, enters into an agreement to reimburse the
applicant for costs in excess of its fair share. If no
reimbursement agreement is adopted, the applicant shall pay its
13
970702 iac 0031 S87
• •
fair share based on traffic attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor
projects. Implementation of this mitigation measure will not occur
until approvals are obtained from the City of Menlo Park and/or the
County of San Mateo, as applicable.
Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road: Mitigation measure 4.4-7 (e)
identifies a number of improvements which would be necessary to
mitigate cumulative traffic impacts at this intersection, including
the following:
Add a second southbound left turning lane.
Restripe eastbound approach.
l-iodify signal phasing, including a leading left turn
phase in the signal phasing for the north and south
directions.
The timing of these improvements will be determined by the
City of Menlo Park, through periodic monitoring and/or through
subsequent environmental impact analysis and documentati.on.
Condition 2. i partially implements th_'Ls mitigation measure by
requiring that the applicant shall either make signal timing
improvements sufficient to return traffic levels of service at this
intersection to level of service D, or contribute its fair share of
the costs to construct the recommended intersection improvements.
This obligation would not be triggered until current level of
service falls toE or worse:,
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Junipero Serra ~lvd,LAlpine
Road: Mitigation measure 4.4-7 (h) provides that the applicant
shall conduct an operational analysis of the Sand Hill Road/Santa
Cruz Avenue and Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersections
to identify the appropriate combination of roadway and traffic
signal improvements necessary to improve operation to LOS D during
peak hours, if feasible.
The EIR also recommends that the following mitigation measures
be implemented to mitigate curnulative traffic impacts at specif.ied
intersections within the City of Menlo Park, but does not provide
for direct participation by the applicant in implementation of
these mitigation measures.
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(f)
recommends that the following improvements to the El Camino
Real/Ravenswood Avenue intersection be complete~ as prescribed in
~he City of Menlo Park's general plan:
9707021ac 0031S87
Widen northbound approach to add third northbo~~d through
lane.
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane.
14
•
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue: Mitigation
measure 4.4-7(g) recommends that the following improvements to the
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue intersection be
completed as rrescribed in the City of Menlo Park's general plan:
Restripe northbound approach to add third northbound
through lane.
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane.
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
Final design shall include provisions for bicycle
traffic.
In addition, the EIR recommends that signal phasing at this
intersection be modified to include split phasing in the east/itie.st
direction and a leading left turn phase in the north./south
direction.
In addition to these specific mitigation measures recommended
in the EIR, the final conditions of approval for the Stanford West
Apartments project include a number of additional conditions which
are intended to reduce individual automobile trips to and from the
project site, and thereby potentially further reduce the project's
impacts on area intersections. These conditions include the
following:
Condition 7. g x·equires the construction of a bicycle and
pedestrian connecting pathway between the Stanford West A.P·artments
and neighboring Oak Creek Apartments, if approval for this
connecting pathway is obtained from the ground lessee of the Oak
Creek Apartments property.
Condition 14.A requires the applicant to provide for on-site
child care. The provisions for a child care facility are more
fully described in the Development Agreement.
Condition 62 requires the applicant to provide an on-site
convenience retail facility to enable residents to roak.e small
purchases of convenience food and household items without
generating off-site vehicle trips.
Changes to the tiered priot·ity system for the project have
been included in the Development Agreement for the project. These
changes will result in increased priority for Stanford employees
who are likely to be able to travel to and from work by foot,
bicycle or public transit.
15
970702lac 0031587
• •
The Council finds that these adopted changes and mitigation
measures, if implemented, will lessen the project's impacts on
traffic at the four significantly affected intersections to a less
than significant level, and will also substantially lessen the
impact of the project's contribution to cumulative traffic at other
intersections significantly affected by the Sand Hill Corridor
projects collectively. Mitigation measures 4.4-?(a)-(e), as
modified by the conditions of approval, require the applicant to
pay all or a fair share of the costs of physical improvements
necessary to enable each of the affected intersections to serve
anticipar:ed cumulative traffic demands at acceptable levels of
service. Mitigation measure 4. 4-7 {h) also provides for
identification of appropriate additional intersection improveme:nts
should the City of Menlo Park elect to achieve a higher level of
service at the Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Alpine
Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersections. Conditions of
approval 7.g, 14.A and 62 require additional changes to the project
which will potentially eliminate some vehicle trips to and from the
project site by providing on-site child care and convenience
shopping facilities, thus eliminating the need for some vehicle
trips, and by encouraging use of bicycles or walking for visits
bet-ween residents of the Oak Creek Apartments and Stanford We.st
Apartments.
The Council recognizes that final authority to approve and
implement the identified mitigation measures at three of the four
intersections significantly affected by the project is vested in
public agencies other than the City, specifically the County of
Santa Clara {mitigation measure 4. 4-7 (a}, Arboretum Road/Galvez
Street}; the City of Menlo Park (mitigation measures 4.4-7(c), Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and 4.4-7(e), Middlefield Avenue/Willow
Road); and the County of San Mateo (mitigation measure 4.4-?(c),
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue). Responsibility and authority
for implementing the recommended mitigation measures at the
additional intersections cumulatively impacted by the prcject is
also vested in other public agencies, specifically the City of
Menlo Park (mitigation measures 4.4-?(f), El Camino Real/Ravenswood
Avenue, and 4.4-7 (g), El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood
Avenue) and 4.4-?(d), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa
Cruz Avenue) . The Council finds that the identified mitigabion
measures can and should be approved and implemented by these
agencies. However, the Council also recognizes that in the event
that one or more of the listed mitigation measures are not approved
and implemented by the appropriate responsible agency, the project
will cause significant adverse impacts on the Arboretum Road/Galvez
Street, Middlefield Ave./Willow Road and/or Sand Hill Road/Santa
Cruz Avenue intersections, and may contribute to significant
impacts at other intersectiuns cumulatively affected by the Sand
Hill Corridor projects. Because it cannot presently be determined
if or when the appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented
by the respective responsible agencies, these impacts are
considered by the Council to be potentially significant.
16
9"1070llac 0031 sa;
• •
4.4·8 CODatruction activities could lead to both temporary
d.i•ruptlo:a. of transportation system operation, as well as to
peD~&Dent dulage to element• of the system such •• pavement and
brid.gea.
Mltigation measure t.4-8(a) requires the applicant to provide
adequate off-street parking for all construction-related vehicles
throughout the construction period. If adequate parking cannot be
provided on the construction sites, a satellite parking area shall
be designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer
construction workers to the job sites~
Mitigation measure 4.4-8(b) provides that construction
activities related to the project are prohibited from substantially
limiting pedestrian access (e~gt by blocking pedestrian routes),
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto and/or Caltrans.
Any approval shall require submittal and approval of specific
construction rr~nagement plans to n1itigate the specific impacts to
a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4-4.S(c) provides that the applicant shall
be prohibited from limiting bicycle access (e.g. by blocking .or
restricting existing routes) while constructing the project,
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto and/or Caltrans
or th~ City of Menlo Park (depending upon the jurisdiction of the
requested action} . Any approval will require submittal and
approval of specific construction management plans to mitigate the
specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mi.t.igation measure 4.4-8(d) provides tha.t the applicant shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
material deliveries from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.s and from 4 p.m. to 6
p.m. on weekdays.
~tigation measure 4.4-8(e) provides that the applicant shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number df construction
employees arriving or departing the site from the hours of 4:30
p.m~ to 6 p.m ..
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(f) requires that ·all
construction-related equi~~ent and materials shall be delivered and
removed on truck routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto and
Menlo Park. Hea~~ constrJction vehicles shall be prohibited from
accessing the sites from other routes.
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(g) requires the applicant to repair
any structural damage to public roadways caused by construction
equipment or vehicles, returning any damaged sections to original
structural condition. The effectiveness of this measure shall be
guaranteed by requiring surveys of road conditions before and after
construction.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 4-S(h} prohibits the applicant from
limiting access to public transit (e.g. by relocating or
restricting access to bus stops or transfer facilities), and from
17
9'7010l'-c00ll5t7
1~. ----------.----~-----.
limiting movement of public transit vehicles, without prior
approval from the Santa Clara Transit Agency or other appropriate
jurisdiction. Any approval will require submittal of specific
construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to
a less~than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4.4-8(1) provides that in lieu of
mitigation measures 4-4-B(a) through (h), the project applicant may
prepare a detailed construction ~ct mitigation plan for approval
by the City's Chief Transportation Official and City of Menlo Park
Transportation Manager prior to commencing any construction
activities with potential transportation impacts in their
respective jurisdictions 4 The plan 1m.1st address all aspects of
construction traffic management necessary to eliminate or reduce
transportation impacts to acceptable levels.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project 1 s potential construction phase traffic and
transportation impacts to a less than significant level. These
measures provide for comprehensive planning for construction
traffic to avoid conflicts with other transportation needs and
establish standards and criteria which ~ill ensure that significant
adverse impacts are a~"'~oided.
4.5 AIR QUALITY
4 .. 5-1 The PM,0 generated during the construction of the proposed
projects could be har.mful to nearby pollutant-sensitive land uses.
Mitigation measure 4.5-1 requires the applicant to implement
a construction phase program which includes the following measures
to reduce generation of particulate matter on the project site
during construction:
Water all active construction areas at least twice a day,
or as needed to prevent visible dust plumes from blowing
off-site.
Use tarpaulins or other effective covers for on-site
storage piles and for haul trucks on public streets.·
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic)
soil ~tabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas during construction.
Sweep all paved access routes, parking areas, aP-d staging
areas daily (preferably with water sweepers) .
Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if
visible amounts of soil material is carried onto public
streets.
If the working area of any construction site exceeds four
acres at any one time, implement the following additional measures:
18
970702 ~ 003 U87
•
Apply (nonwtoxic)
construction areas.
soil
•
stabilizers to inactive
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non~toxic)
soil binders to exposed stockpiles ..
Limit construction site vehicle speed to 15 mph on
unpaved areas.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible ..
If the working area of any construction site is located near
any sensitive receptors~ implement the following measures in
addition to those listed above:
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed
25 mph.
The last mitigation would be applicable to the Stanford West
Apartments site where.it approaches the Children's Health Council.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the identified impact to a less than significant level.
Implementation of twice daily watering has been shown to reduce
construction site PM10 emissions by at least 50 percent. This
practice, in conjunction with the other listed measures, will
reduce PH10 emissions during construction to less than the BAAQMD
threshold of significance for all anticipated construction
activity.
4. S-2 ROG, NOx, and PM,0 emissions generated by motor vehicles
and residential stationary sources associated w1th the proposed
projects would exceed the 80 lbs/day threshold and could hinder
regional and local attainment of State ozone and ~0 standards.
The EIR concludes that air pollution emissions from the
project --almost entirely from related vehicle traffic --would be
approximately 55 lbs/day for reactive organic compounds (ROG}, 65
. lbs/day for nitrogen oxides {NOx) and 51 lbs/day of ·p~0 particulates, all below the threshold of significance recognized by
the BAAQMD and utilized in the EIR. Due to continuing changes in
automotive technology/ it is further expected that emissions would
drop to 26 lbs/day of ROG and 49 lbs/day of NOx and remain at 51
lbs/day of PM10 by the year 2010. The project therefore will not
individually have a significant adverse effect on air quality.
The EIR also concluded·' however, that the project would
contribute to significant total air quality impacts from the Sand
Hill Road Corridor projects as a whole. The conditions of approval
of the project, however, do include measures intended to reduce
overall numbers of vehicle trips from the project and resulting air
pollution emissions.
19
970702 lac 0031587
• •
Mitigation measure 4.5-2 (a) requires the City to implement
mitigation measure 4.4-2(a), which provides that final design for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Stanford West
Apartments and Senior Housing sites shall be reviewed to ensure the
circulation system will function as a part of regional or
inter-city bicycle and pedestrian connections, thereby promoting
increased use of bicycles or pedestrian travel by area residents.
Condition 7 .g requires the construction of a bicycle and
pedestrian connecting pathway between the Stanford West Apartments
and neighboring Oak Creek Apartments, if approval for this
connecting pathway is obtained from the ground lesse·e of the Oak
Creek Apartments property.
Condition 14 .A, as more fully described in the Development
Agreement, requires the applicant to provide for on-site child
care; which will eliminate the need for project residents to drive
to off-site child care.
Condition 62 re~~ires the applicant to provide a s~all on-site
convenience retail facility, which will enable residents to make
purchases of convenience food and household items without
generating off-site vehicle trips.
Changes to the tiered priority system for the project have
been included in the Development Agreement for the project. These
changes will result in increased priority for Stanford employees
who are likely to be able to travel to and from work by foot 1 bicycle or public transit.
The Council finds that these measures will lessen project
related air pollution impacts somewhat, but will not reduce the
cumulative impact of the Sand Hill Corridor Projects to less than
significant levels. The cumulative air quality impacts of the Sand
Hill Corridor Projects will therefore be significant. ·
4.5 ... 4 Cumulative daily traffic along major roadways in the
project and study areas would emit more NOx, and PJfo with the
~lementation of the Sand Hill Road Projects, but emissions of ROG
would decrease.
The EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for this
area-wide cumulative impact. The Council has adopted various
project conditions and mitigation measures, including mitigation
measure 4.5-2(a) and Conditions 7.g, 14.A, as further described in
the Development Agreement, and 62, as well as the tiered priority
rental system described in the Development Agreement, to reduce
traffic from the Stanford West Apartments project.. However,
cumulative traffic-related air pollution emissions are regulated
primarily through measures beyond the City's jurisdiction or
control. Individual vehicle emissions and automotive fuels are
subject to regulation only by state or federal government.
Regional traffic levels are also heavily influenced by past and
future planning and land use decisions of other jurisdictions over
which the City has no control. The Council therefore finds that no
20
970702 W: 0031 S87
• •
additional feasible mitigation measures are presently available to
the City to substantially lessen cumulative air quality ~cts due
to increases in regional traffic and that these impacts must
therefore be considered significant.
4,§ lfOISB
4.6-l The noise generated during the construction of the
proposed projects could be disruptive to nearby noise-sensitive
land uses.
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(a) provides that cons~ruction
activities will be limited to the hours of 8:00 awm. to 8:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and if weekend work is necessary, to the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and to the hours of
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(b) provides that construction
equipment shall be outfitted and maintained with noise reduction
devices {i.e., mufflers, enclosures for stationary equipment, etc.)
to obtain at least an average 10 dBA reduction shown feasible in
Table 4.6-5.
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(c) -provides that stationary noise
sources {e.g., compressors, concrete mixers, etc.) shall be located
on portions of the sites furthest away from residential and other
noise-sensitive areas, and that acoustic shielding shall be used
with such equipment.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will
substantially lessen construction phase noise impacts on
surrounding residents, but will not reduce these impacts to a less
than significant level. The adopted mitigation measures will
directly reduce noise generated by construction activities on-site
and will eliminate construction noise impacts during normal
sleeping hours .. However, construction noise impacts will remain
significant due to the levels of noise unavoidably generated by
large scale construction activity and heavy equipment.
4.6-3 Traffic generated by the proposed projects and otther
cumulative developments and the traffic accommodated by the
proposed roadway improvements would impact existing and proposed
redidential and other sensitive land uses adjacent to roadways in
the project and study areas.
~tigation measure 4.6-3(a) requires that project residential
units facing Sand Hill Road contain sufficient acoustic insulation
to meet State Title 24 indoor noise standards.
The Council finds that this mitigation measure will reduce any
potential significant noise impacts on project residents to a less
than significant level by requiring noise protection to be built
into residential units to reduce interior noise levels to
acceptable levels.
21
910702 lac 0031 S87
• •
The BIR also concluded that although the project would not
cause significant noise impacts, traffic from the project would
contribute to cumulative noise impacts on some residences along
Sand Hill Road. The conditions of approval for the project
therefore incorporate the following mitigation measures to assist
in mdtigating potential cumulative traffic-related noise impacts.
Mitigation measure 4.6-3(b) requires the applicant to
construct a landscaped buffer strip with at least a 3-foot-high
berm along Sand Hill Road between Stanford Avenue and Oak Avenue in
conjunction with implementation of the Sand Hill Road widening and
realignment between Santa Cruz and Oak Avenues.
Mitigation measure 4.6-J{c} requires the applicant to
construct a soundwall 6 feet high or higher between Santa Cruz
Avenue and Stanford Avenue in conjunction with implementation of
the Sand Hill Road widening to reduce noise from traffic increases
at the nearby intersection.
Mitigation measure 4.6-3(d}, as modified by Condition 2.e of
the project conditions of approval, requires the applicant to
rronitor noise increases in residences in the designated areas along
Sand Hill Road where the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects may be
responsible for more than 50% of potential increases in
traffic-related noise. If noise increases are detected, the
applicant shall be responsible for the costs of measures such as
additioP~l insulation, double-glazed windows, or individual
soundwalls as det..ermined necessary by acoustic study to return
interior noise levels in these residences to pre-project levels or
45 dBa. Residents may also contribute any further funds necessary
to further reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels.
The Council finds that these mitigation measures, if
~lemented, will substantially lessen significant cumulative
traffic-related noise impacts along the Sand Hill Road corridor
although these measures will not necessarily reduce cumulative
noise impacts to a less than significant level for evezy residence
affected by the project. ~tigation measure 4.6-3(d) provides for
a fair share contribution by the applicant to the costs of
physically upgrading affected residences with noise mitigation
measures. Mitigation measures ·~ . 6-3 (b) and 4 . 6-3 (c) provide for
construction of physical barriers to reduce noise to acceptable
levels at protected residences. The adopted mitigation measure
4.6-3 (d) will impose responsibility for necessary monitoring of
actual noise increases on the applicant and also imposes
responsibility on the applicant to pay a share of actual mdtigation
costs in proportion to the applicant's responsibility for these
~cts where the Sand Hill Corridor projects are the predominant
cause of cumulative traffic-related noise impacts. The Council
does not believe that the applicant can or equitably should be held
responsible for more than a fair share of the costs of mitigating
these potential cumulative noise impacts. Revisions made by the
City to mitigation measure 4.6-3(d) are intended to strengthen the
measure by fixing responsibility for noise monitoring on the
applicant, and to also amend the measure to provide that the
22
.... -----------------------------------• •
applicant shall be financially responsible only for a fair share of
the costs of implementing the mitigation measure. The Council
recognizes th.a.t mitigation measure 4. 6-3 {d) , as adopted, will not
result in lessening of cumulative noise impacts at locations at
which less than sot of the cumulative traffic-related noise
increase is attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor projects. The
Council also recognizes that since implementation of mitigation
measure 4.6-3(d) also requires the cooperation of affected
homeowners, the physical improvements necessary to reduce noise
levels at some affected residences to acceptable levels may not be
constructed by choice of the owner. The Council therefore
recognizes that notwithstanding adoption of the identified
mitigation measures,. cumulative traffic-related noise impacts may
remain significant for some residences affected by the projects.
With respect to mitigation measures 4.6-3(bl and 4.6-3(c},
which will mitigate noise impacts on certain residences in Menlo
Park, the Council further recognizes that although the conditions
of approval req-Llire the applicant to accept responsibility for
implementation of these mitigation measures, approval for
implementation of these measures must be obtained from the City of
Menlo Park. The Cour:cil f. i.nds that irnolementation of these
mitigation measures can and should be approv~d by the City of Menlo
Park. The Council also reccgnizes, however, that in the event that
approval for implementation of these ~easures is not obtained from
Menlo Park, affected residences in Henlo Park would experience
significant cumulative traffic-related noise impacts due to
increased cumulative traffic on Sand Hill Road.
4.7 8IOHQGICAL RESOURCES
4.7-1 ~lementatio~ of the proposed projects would result in
loss of trees and associated wildlife habitat.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-1 (a.) requires that native tree·s removed
for the projects shall be replaced at a ratio of 3 ~·1 on a per acre
basis with specimens of the same species obtained from locally
collected stock, and provides for additional replanting if survival
rates fall below 80 percent.
Mitigation measure 4.7-1(b) requires that non-native landscape
~rees removed for the projects be replaced on a two-to-one basis.
Mitigation measure 4.7-1(c) provides that the City shall
contract with an independent arbori.st to (a) review construction
plans to provide for maximum retention of trees and necessary
additional tree protection measures; b) monitor project
construction; and c) recommend changes in the tree removal plan a·::-
necessary during construction.
Mitigation measure 4.7-1(e) requires that all trees adjacent
to project construction areas which are not rerr~ved will be avoided
and protected according to specified procedures incorporated into
all construction and/or demolition contracts.
23
970702 1ac 003l S87
• •
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's long term impacts on trees and related wildlife
habitat to less than signific~~t levelse The adopted measures will
also substantially lessen but will not avoid significant adverse
short term and intermediate term impacts. The adopted measures
provide for protection of as many trees as possible during project
construction and replacement of all trees removed as a result of
the project at a 2-1 to 3-1, ratio with additional measures to
ensure the success of replanting. This mitigation program will
therefore eventually result in replacement habitat of equal or
greater value. However, because it will take a n~ber of years
before replacement trees re~ch a level of maturity to those being
removed and pruvide equivalent habitat value, there will be a
significant short-term and intermediate term decline in quality of
trees and related habitat value at the project site.
4o7-2 Construction of the proposed projects would result in
tree removals that could directly destroy nests, eggs and immature
birds, and would remove future nesting habitat for birds, including
sensitive species such as raptors and migrating songbirds.
Mitigation measure 4.7-2(a) provides that in order to avoid
the nesting season of raptors and sensitive songbirds, tree
removals shall not take place between February 15 and June 3 0,
unless otherwise determined by the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) on a case-by-case basis.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 7-2 (b) provides that if tree removal
between January 1 and February 15 is required, a pre-construction
survey shall be conducted to identify the presence, or lack
thereof, of nests of raptors. If nests are identified, CDFG shall
be contacted and appropriate protocols for nest relocation shall be
implemented~ If relocation of occupied, viable nests is not
feasible, construction shall be delayed and the tree left
undisturbed until completion of nesting activity.
Mitigation measure 4.7-2(c) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-l(a)~ (f) and 4.7-4(a)-(c} (tree replacement
and riparian habitat replacement), discussed above and below.
The Council finds that adoption ~f these measurAs will lessen
the project's impacts on nesting birds to a less than significant
level. These measures will avoid any direct destruction of nests
and provide for eventual replacement or enhancement of all nesting
habitat lost. While there will be a short term loss of nesting
habitat for all bird species and short and intermediate term loss
of nesting habitat for raptors ~ there are sufficient alternate
nesting sites in the area that this impact will not have any
significant adverse effect on overall nesting opportunities or on
bird populations.
4.7-3 Loss of non-native grasslands near San Prancisquito Creek
Mitigation measure 4.7-3(a} provides that grassland habitat
shall be preserved within the area between San Francisquito Creek
24
970702 lac 0031 $87
• •
and the Stanford West Apartments. This area shall be enhanced by
protection from discing, and by replanting with native grasses and
wildflowers and monitored for at least five years to ensure
success.
Mitigation measure 4.7-3(b) requires that remaining grassland
habitat be enhanced by seeding with a mix of California native
grasses and forbs, and/or planting of plugs of native grasses
before winter rainfall in the year of grassland removal.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-3 (c) requires that all replacement
grassland shall be planted on-site.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-3 (d) requires that all replacement
grassland shall be monitored for a minimum of two years to ensure
at least 50 percent survival. If irrigation or fertilizers are
used, all replacement grasses shall be "weaned" of any supplemental
water and fertilizer by the third year.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-3 {e) requires that a ye.arly rna.intenance
and monitoring report shall be provided to the City detailing
compliance with the replacement planting success criteria. If the
success criteria are not meti the City shall require the project
applicant to implement remedial actions that will result in a
minimum 50 percent survival after five years of the last date of
planting.
Mitigation measure 4. 7 .. 3 (f) provides that mowing for fire
control shall be performed around the perimeter of any grassland
areas, leaving as much of the internal area intact as allowable to
local fire authorities, and leaving the mowed area no higher than
18 inches.
Mitigation measure 4.7-3(g} provides that the City may require
a performance bond or other security to ensure any necessary
replanting of grasslands if determined necessary. 'This mitigation
measure is implemented and modified by Condition 2 of the project
conditions of approval.
Mitigation measure 4.7-3(h) requires the applicant to prohibit
future use of retain~d grassland area for any construction-related
activities ..
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's impacts on grassland habitats to a less than
significant level. The mitigation measures provide for
preservation and enhancement of a substantial area of natural
grasslands on the site. The EIR indicates that native revegetation
can increase general habitat va.lues and the carrying capacity for
wildlife using this area. The cessation of discing can increase
the burrowing rodent population for foraging raptors. Consultation
with CDFG indicates that enhancement of the remaining grassland can
mitigate the overall impact of the project on grasslands to a less
than significant level.
25
970702 lac 0031 ~87
• •
4.7-8 Ongoing operation of the proposed projects could
adveraely affect aquatic life, including sensitive antmal species,
in San Prancisquito Creek, by increasing runoff and non-point
•ource urban pollutant loads ..
Mitigation measure 4.7-B(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a)-(c)~ discussed below~
Mitigation measure 4.7-B(b} requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-4(a) and (b), discussed below.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential impacts on aquatic life in San Francisquito
Creek to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures
provide for implementation of construction phase and
post-construction storm water runoff management plans which will
utilize recognized best management practices to minimize siltation
and runoff of conta~inants from the project site. Residual silt
and contaminant runoff reaching San Francisquito Creek is not
expected to constitute a sufficient addition to loads from existing
development in the watershed to result in any measurable further
deterioration of water cru.ality conditions.
4.i-9 Operation of the proposed projects would increase human
access resulting in direct ~acts to sensitive animal species and
disturbance and trampling damage to sensitive ripar1.an habitat
adjscent to San Francisquito Creek and to the Creek channel.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-9 (a) requires that existing trails
providing access to the riparian habitats along San Francisquito
Creek be obliterated by dense barrier plantings of native riparian
shrubs. A new trail will be designed for the length of the San
Francisquito riparian corridor in the project area, located outside
of riparian habitats and the drip lines of existing trees.
Appropriate measures will be utilized to encourage exclusive use of
this trail. Educational interpretive signs and di'splays shall be
posted along this trail. View points shall be established in areas
adjacent to the Creek where their siting will cause minimal damage
to existing riparian vegetation. Direct public access to the Creek
bank and channel shall not be pennitted except over existing
crossings and for access to these carefully sited view points.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the potential impacts of increased human intrusion of
the San Francisquito Creek riparian area to a less than significant
level. The adopted measure provides for substantial preventive
action to minimize future human intrusion and resulting impacts to
the riparian zone, and for restoration of existing damage, thus
potentially resulting in a net beneficial impact to the riparian
corridor.
26
970702 Sac 0031 $87
• •
4.7-10 t.pl.-entation of the proposed projects, in conjunction
with other propoeed projects in the area would result in
incr .. ental !oaa of trees and associated wildlife habitat.
Mitigation measure 4.7·10(a) requires implementation of
mdtigation measures 4.7-l(a, b, c, and e), discussed above, for all
Sand Hill Corridor projects.
Mitigation measure 4.7 ... 10(c) recommends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project area implement their respective tree
protection and preservation ordinances. For those jurisdictions
without such an ordinance, measures similar to those presented in
mitigation measure 4.7~1 should be implemented on a
project-by~project basis.
The Council has adopted the recommended mitigation measures
for the Stanford West Apartments project and other approved Sand
Hill Corridor projects. The Council finds that adoption of the
reco~nended project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the cumulative loss of trees and associated
wildlife habitat to a less than significant level. Adoption and
implementation of these measures in conjunction with the Stanford
west Senior Housinq and Sand Hill Road Extension and Related
Roadway Improvements projects will also reduce the combined
cu..mulative impact of the projects to a less than significant level ..
These measures generally provide for full replacement of trees lost
due to implementation of the project, thus eliminating any
significant cumulative impact.
Adoption of equivalent mitigation measures for future
development projects reviewed by the City is beyond the scope of
approvals granted for the project. The Council finds, however,
that City decisionmakers can and should adopt such measures in
conjunction with any future projects which may result in c~~ulative
loss of trees and associated wildlife habitat within the City.
'.•
With respect to future implementation of the recommended
measures by other jurisdictions in the area, the Council finds that
implementation is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the
identified other agencies and that such measures can and should be
adopted by such agencies. However, because the nature and extent
of potential cumulative impacts from future development in the area
are presently speculative and unknown, and the extent to which the
recommended mitigation measures will be implemented by all
responsible jurisdictions is also presently unknown and is beyond
the control of the City, the Council cannot determine at this time
the extent to which the recommended measures will lessen or avoid
the potential cumulative impact, and therefore finds that the
cumulative impact remains potentially significant.
27
970102 lac 003 Ul7
• •
4.7·11 Construction of the proposed projects, in conjunction
with other projects in the project area, would CUIIlUlatively result
in tree removals t.bat could directly destroy neata, eggs and
tmmature birds, and would remove future nesting habitat for birda,
including sensitive s.peeies such as raptora and migrating
aongbird.ll.
Mitigation measure 4.7·11(a) requires implementation of
mdtigation measures 4.7-2{a-c}, discussed above, for the Sand Hill
Corridor development projeces.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 7 ·11 (b) recomnends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project area implement measures similar to
those presented in mitigation measure 4.7-2 on a project-by-project
basis.
The conditions of approval for the Stanford West Apartments
project incorporate the applicable project-specific mitigation
measures recommended in mitigation measu:ce t;. 7-11 (a j • The Council
has also adopted the recommended project-specific mitigation
measures as conditions of approval for the Stanford West Senior
Housing and Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway
Improvements projects. The Council finds that adoption of the
recommended project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the identified cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level. Adoption of these mit-igation measures in
conjunction with the approved projects will also reduce the
combined cumulative imoact of the nrojects to a less than
significant level. Thesimeasures gene;ally provide for avoidance
of tree-cutting which may directly impact nesting activities and
provide for full replacement of trees lost due to implementation of
the project, thus eliminating any significant cumulative impact.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
any future projects approved by the City. With respect to
cumulative impacts fr~~ future development projects outside of the
City, the Council finds that implementation of the recommended
measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other
public agencies and that the agencies can and should implement such
measures to the extent feasible. Because the nature and extent of
the potential cumulative impact from future projects is presently
entirely speculative and unknown, and because the extent to which
other agencies can and will implement the recommended mitigation
measures is presently unknown, the Council cannot determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen or avoid potential cumulative visual impacts. The
Council therefore finds that this cumulative impact remains
potentially significant despite the adoption of available
mitigation measures by the City.
28
970702 I~ 0031 ~87
• •
4.7-12 The proposed projects, in conjunction with other pro.poaed
projects in or adjacent to the San Prancisquito Creek riparian
corridor, would result in the loss of Don-native graaalanda which,
due to contiguousness with riparian habitat, provide increaaed
habitat diveraity and foraging habitat for certain wildlife
species, including raptors.
Mitigation measure 4.7-12(a} requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-3(a-h), discussed above.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-12 (b) recommends that further
development of open grassland areas adjacent to San Francisquito
Creek or its tributaries (primarily in the foothills southwest of
Junipero Serra Road} not be approved without provisions to
implement mitigation measures similar to those of Mitigation
Measure 4.7-3(a)-(h), in consultation with CDFG.
The Council has adopted the recommended mitigation measures
for the project and other approved Sand Hill Corridor projects.
The Council finds that adoption of the recommended project-specific
measures will lessen the project's contribution to potential
cumulative losses of trees and nesting habitat to a less than
significant level. With respect to future projects within the
City's jurisdiction which may contribute t.o cumulative loss of
cultural resources, the City will consider implementation of the
recommended measures at the time future development proj( ':s are
pt·oposed.
With respect to future implementation of t:he reco!lll\ended
measures by other jurisdictions in the area 6 the Council finds that
implementation is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the
identified other agencies and that such measures can and should be
adopted by such agencies. However, because the nature and extent
of potential cumulative impacts from future development in the
region are presently speculative and unknown, and the extent to
which the recommended mitigation measures will be'· adopted by all
responsible jurisdictions is also presently unknown and is beyond
the control of the City, the Council cannot determine at this time
the extent to which the recommended measures will lessen or avoid
this potential cumulative impact, and therefore finds that 'the
cumulative.irnpact remains potenti~lly significant and unavoidable.
4. 7-15 Ongoing operation of the proposed projects. in
conjunction with similar projects within the same watershed, could
cause cumulative adverse affects on aquatic life1 including
sensitive animal species, in San Prancisquito Creek, by increasing
runoff and nonMpoint source urban pollutant loads.
Mitigation measure 4.7-15 recommends implementation of the
mitigation measures prescribed in mitigation measures 4.9-7{a}-(c)
for all future projects in the San Francisquito Creek watershed_
The conditions of approval for the Stanford West Apartments
project incorporate each of the applicable recommended
project-specific mitigation measures. The Council has also adopted
29
• •
the recommended project-specific mitigation measures as conditions
of approval for the other Sand Hill Corridor projects approved
concurrently with the project. The Council finds that adoption of
these reco~.ended project-specific measures will lessen the
project's contribution to the identified cumulative impacts to a
less than significant level. Adoption and implementation of these
mitigation measures in conjunction with the ether Sand Hill
Corridor projects will also reduce the combined cumulative impact
of these projects to a less than significant level. The adopted
project-specific measures generally provide for preparation and
compliance with detailed Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plans
which will include specific measures to prevent excessive sediment
or pollution runoff which might result in significant adverse
effects on aquatic life or habitat va.lues in San Francisquito
Creek.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures or equivalent
measures for future development projects within the City is beyond
the scope of approvals granted for the project; however, the
Council finds that such measures can and should be adopted in
conjunction with any future projects approved by the City. With
respect to cumulative impacts from future development projeots
outside of the City, the Council finds that implementation of the
recommended measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility·
of other public agencies and that the agencies can and should
implement such measures to the extent feasible. Because the nature
and extent of the potential cumulative impact from future projects
is presently speculative and unknown, and because the extent to
which other agencies can and will implement the recommended
mitigation measures is presently unknown, the Council cannot
determine at this time the extent to which the recommended measures
will be implemented or the extent to which these measures, if
implemented/ will lessen or avoid potential cumulative impact
resulting from increased runoff of sediment and pollutants.into San
Francisquito Creek. The Council therefore finds that this
cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite the
adoption of available mitigation measures by the City.
4.7-16 Operation of the proposed projects, in conjunction with
similar projects in or adjacent to the riparian corridor of 'San
Prancisquito Creek or its tributaries, would increase human access,
cumulatively resulting in direct impacts to sensitive animal
species and disturbance and trampling damage to sensitive riparian
habitat.
Mitigation measure 4.7-16(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4. 7-9 (a) and (b) , discussed above for the
Stanford West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects.
Mitigation measure 4.7-16(b) recommends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project area implement measures similar to
those presented in mitigation measure 4.7-9 on a project-by-project
basis.
30
970702 lac 0031 ~87
• •
The Council has adopted each of the project-specific
mdtigation measures referenced in mitigation measures 4.7-16(a) and
4.7-16(b), in the conditions of approval for the Stanford West
Apartments project and Stanford West Senior Housing project. The
Council finds that adoption of the recommended project .. specific
measures will lessen the projects' contribution to potential
cumulative impact on the San Francisquito Creek riparian corridor
to a less than significant level. Adoption of the recommended
mitigation measures with respect to future development projects
within the City is beyond the scope of approvals granted for the
project; however, the Council finds that such measures can and
should be adopted in conjunction with any future projects within
the City located near riparian habitat areas.
With respect to future development projects located outside of
the City, the Council finds that implementation of the recommended
measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other
public agencies and that the agencies can and should implement such
~~asures to the extent feasible. Because the nature and extent of
potential cumulative impacts from future development are presently
entirely speculative and unknown,. and because the extent to which
ether agencies can and will implement the recommended measures ·is
presently unknown, the Council cannot.determine at this time the
extent to which the recommended measures will be implemented or the
extent to which these measures, if implemented~ will lessen or
avoid potential cumulative effects. The Council therefore finds
that this cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite
the adoption of available mitigation measures by the Council.
4.8 GBOLQGY, $OILS AND SEISMICITY
4.8 ... 1 Expansive or weak soils could damage foundations by
providing inadequate support.
Mitigation measure 4.8-l(a) requires that site spec.ific soil
suitability analysis be conducted and soil stabilization procedures
and foundation design criteria be adopted in accordance with
engineering criteria where the existence of expansive and
compressible soil conditions is known or suspected.
Mitigation measure 4. 8-1 (b) requires participation by the
project~s registered soil engineer as deemed necessary to oversee,
verify, and report on soil engineering procedures and results.
The EIR concludes that this impact is potentially, but not
necessarily, significant, based on actual conditions encountered at
the site. The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation
measures will lessen impacts related to potentially expansive or
weak soils to a less than significant level. These measures
provide for implementation of standard engineering procedures and
criteria which will ensure construction of safe buildings and
foundations.
31
910702 lac 0031 S87
• •
4.8·2 The Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects area ia
8ubject to very atrong aeiaaieally induced groundshaking which
could threaten life and damage property.
Mitigation measure 4.8-2(&) requires documented site-specific
seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated in the design of
foundations and structures of project structures. The criteria
must meet the minimum seismic-res:stant design standards of CUBC
Seismic Zone 4. Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and
construction design criteria will be incorporated in the project
where recommended by qualified experts. Roads, foundations and
underground utilities in fill or alluvium shall be designed to
accommodate settlement or compaction produced by seismic forces.
Mitigation measure 4~8-2(b) requires on-site participation by
the project's registered geological or geotechnical engineering
consultant~ as deemed appropriate~ to oversee, verify, and report
on seismic-restraint procedures and results.
Mitigation measure 4.8-2 (c) requires that an engineering
geologist be contracted for third party review of all geologic,
soils and engineering reports prepared for the proposed projects.
-~~e Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the impact of exposure to seismi.c events to a less than significant
level. These measures implement standard engineering procedures
and criteria for preventing major building failures and resulting
injury or loss of life from a.ny seismic event reasonably
anticipated to occur in the project area.
4.8·4 r.pleaentation of any combination of the projects, in
conjunction with cumulative development within San Mateo and Santa
Clara counties and the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, _would
increase the nu.ber of people and structures subject to st.rong
aeisaic groundshaking and the subsequent risk of injury,· loss of
life and property damage.. ·-
Mitigation measure 4.8-4(a) recommends that documented
site-specific seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated in the
design of foundations and structures of all future development in
the project area, including (1) minimum seismic-resistant design
standards shall conform to the CUBC Seismic Zone 4 Standards; (2)
additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design
criteria shall be incorporated as necessary, based on the
site-specific engineering recommendations; (3) site preparation
shall be supervised by geological or geotechnical consultants; (4)
~as built• ~aps and a report shall be filed with the City, showing
details of the site geology, the location and type of
seismic-restraint facilities, and documenting satisfactory seismic
performance for buildings, roads, foundations and underground
utilities.
Mitigation measure 4.8-4(b) recommends requiring on-site
oversight, verification and reporting by registered geological or
32
970?0lla4: 0031 S87
• •
geotechnical engineering consultants where deemed appropriate by
the City's Chief Building Official.
The conditions of approval for the Stanford West Apartments
project and for each of the other approved Sand Hill Corridor
projects incorporate measures equivalent to the project-specific
mitigation measures recorrnended in mitigation measure 4. 8-4 {a).
The Council finds that adoption of these projectospecific measures
will lessen the project's contribution to the identified c~~lative
~pact to a less than significant level~ and will also lessen the
combined cumulative ~ct of the Sand Hill Corridor projects to a
less than significant level. The adopted project-specific measures
generally provide for incorporation of adequate seismic safety
measures into all new construction as provided by mitigation
measures 4.8-2(a)-(c).
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
any future projects approved by the Ci t.y. With respect to
cumulative impacts from future development outside of the City, the
Council finds t.hat imolementat ion of the recorrunended measures is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies
and that these agencies can and should implement such measures.
Because the recommended mit:igation measures rely in part upo:1
compliance with existing seismic safety practices and standards, it
is expected that other jurisdictions will implement the measures to
a large extent. However I because the extent of the potential
cumulative impact from future projects is presently unknown, and
because the extent to which other agencies can and will implement
the recommended mitigation measures beyond current minimum
standards is uncertain, the Council cannot fully determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen the potential c~~ulative impact ~ssociated with
increased development in the seismically sensitive region around
the projects. The Council therefore finds that this cumulative
impact remains potentially significant despite the adoption of
available mitigation measures by the City.
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-l. Grading, excavation and construction activities could
result in increased deposition of sediment and/or discharge of
pollutants in the storm drainage system. and San Francisquito Creek
and adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-l{a) requires the applicant to prepare 1
retain and implement a SWPPP which describes the site, erosion and
sediment controls, means of material storage and waste disposal,
implementation of approved local plans, post-construction control
measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water
management controls. The plan shall implement appropriate Best
Management Practices (•BMPs•) identified in the EIR.
33
970702 Jac 0031$87
• •
Mitigation measure 4.9-l(b) requires that the SWPPP shall be
prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City•s
Director nf Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit.
The SKPPP shall be implemented and inspected as part of the
approval process for the grading plans for each project.
Mitigation measure 4.9-l(c) requires that all construction
contracts include the City's construction contract Pollution
Prevention Language as part of the project specifications.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential sedimentation and contaminant impacts on
San Francisquito Creek to a less than significant level. The
adopted mitigation measures implement regulatory requirements and
practices demonstrated to prevent excessive or d~aging runoff of
sediments and pollutants from development sites. Residual n1noff
of sediments and contaminants from const~Jction areas, if anyl w:ill
not occur in sufficient quantities to significantly degrade
existing water quality.
4.9-4 Increased impervious surface aDd landscaping associated
with development of the Proposed Projects could increase urban
contaminants in surface runoff potentially reducing water ~~ality
in San Francisquito Creek.
Mitigation measure 4e9-4(a)
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a) through
Corridor projects.
requires implementation of
{c) for all approved Sand Hill
Mitigation measure 4 .. 9-4 (b) re<r..J.ires that the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall include in the final
project design appropriate BMPs selected by the City, consisting
either of detailed measures specified in the EIR or equivalent
measures.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential impacts on San Francisquito Creek to a less
than significant level. The adopted mitigation measures require
implementation of design features and operational practices which
will reduce contamination of exposed surfaces at the project a·ite
and trap or otherwise minimize runoff of such cont&~inants from the
site. Residual contaminant runoff reaching San Francisquito Creek
is not expected to constitute a sufficient addition to loads from
existing development in the watershed to result in any measurable
further deterioration of water quality.
4.9-5 Project construction activities in combination ~~th other
construction projects in the Watershed could cumulatively increase
sediment and other construction-related pollutants in San
Francisquito Creek and adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4. 9 -s (a) recommends that all area
jurisdictions ensure that project applicants include BMPs in
construction contracts implementing the requirements of NPDES
Municipal Storm Water Per.mit #CAS029718.
34
970702 lac 0031 S87
• •
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(b) recommends that applicants for all
area projects of five acres or more, be required to prepare a
detailed SWPPP under the State General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit.
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(c) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a} through (c) for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects.
The recommended mitigation measures or equivalent measures
have been incorporated in the conditions of approval for the
Stanford West Apartments. The Council finds that adoption of these
project-specific measures will lessen the project's contribution to
potential cumulative sedimentation and contaminant impacts
asf'Jociated with construction to a less than significant level ..
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect to
future development projects within the City's jurisdiction is
beyond the scope of approvals granted for the Stanford West
Apartments project; however, the Council finds that the City can
and should require implementation of the recoiTmended measures at
the time future development projects are proposed. With respect to
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures ·by
jurisdictions other than the City, the Council finds that
implementation of such measures is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies and that the recom..rnended
measures can and should be implemented by these agencies to the
extent feasible. These measures are generally consistent with
requirewents imposed by state law. However, because the nature and
extent of potential area-wide cumulative impacts from future
development are presently unknown, and because the extent to which
other agencies can and will implement the recommended measures is
presently unknown, the Council cannot determine at this time the
extent to which the recommended measures will be implemented or the
extent to which these measures, if implemented, will lessen or
avoid potential cumulative effects. The Council therefore finds
that this cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite
the adoption of available mitigation measures by the Council.
4.9·6 Increased impervious surfaces associated with development
of the Stanford Sand Bill Road Corridor Projects and areas in'the
San ·Prancisquito Creek Watershed could cumulatively increase
surface runoff, potentially increasing the frequency and severity
of existing downstream flooding.
Mitigation measure 4.9-6 recommends that all jurisdictions
regulating development in the San Francisquito Creek watershed
require that adequate drainage and flood control facilities be
provided for existing and planned development, in compliance with
applicable General Plan goals and policies and ordinances and in
coordination with Santa Clara Valley Wa.ter District (SCVWD)
requirements.
The Council finds that measures included in the project design
and mitigation measures incorporated in the conditions of project
approval, specifically an on-site retention basin and mitigation
35
970702 lac 0031 S87
• •
measure 4.9-2, effectively implement the above recommended
mitigation measure for the Stanford West Apartments project and
will reduce the potential contribution of the project to cumulative
flooding impacts to a less than significant level.
Lmplementation of the recommended mitigation measure is beyond
the scope of approvals granted for the project. Ho\t~ever, the
Council finds that the City can and will consider adoption and
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures as future
development projects are proposed and in accordance with its
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. With respect to
implementation of the recont.'nended mitigation measure by other
jurisdictions in the San Francisquito Creek watershed, the Council
finds that jurisdiction and responsibility for implementation of
the recommended mitigation measure is vested in other public
agencies and that such agencies can and should adopt and implement
appropriate mitigation programs. Because the extent of potential
Clli"11Ulat.i..ve impacts fr·om future watershed development is currently
unknolltn and because the Council cannot determine at this time the
extent to which the adequate mitigation measures will be
implemented by other agencies, the Council cannot presently
determine whether the identified potential significant cumulati:ve
impact will be substantially lessened or avoided by the recommended
mitigation. This cumulative impact therefore remains potentially
significant.
4.9-7 Increased impervious surface associated with development
of the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects and are~~ in the
San Francisquito Creek Watershed could cumulatively increase urban
contaminants in surface runoff potentially reducing water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-7(a) recommends that all local
jurisdictions ensure that future project applicants include BMPs as
part of project design in accordance with San Franq~sco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) requirements.
'··
Mitigation measure 4. 9-7 {b) notes that it is within the
jurisdiction of the SFBRWQCB to require that comprehensive SWPPPs
and monitoring programs be implemented by all storm water
dischargers associated with specified industrial activities,· in
compliance with the State's General Permits, and to require that
such plans shall include BMPs or equally effective measures.
Mitigation measure 4. 9-7 (c) requires impl:-=rne':.tation of
mitigation measures 4. 9-4 (a) and (b) by all approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects.
The conditions of approval for the Stanford West Apartments
project incorporate each of the recommended project-specific
mitigation res~sures or equivalent measures to mitigate identified
potential cumulative contaminant impacts to San Francisquito Creek.
The Council finds that adoption of these recommended measures will
lessen the project's contribution to the identified cumulative
impact to a less than significant level. The recommended
mitigation measures have also been adopted in connection with
36
9707021&c 0031~87
-------------------------~---·-~----~-------------------·--------
• •
approval of the other approved Sand Hill Road Corridor projects,
and will lessen the combined cumulative impact of the projects to
a less than significant level. Adoption of the recommended
mitigation measures for future development in the City is beyond
the scope of approvals granted for the project.. However, the
Council finds that the City can and should adopt equivalent
measures for all future projects approved within its jurisdiction.
With respect to impacts resulting from future development
outside the City, jurisdiction and responsibility for
implementation of recommended mitigation measures or equivalent
measures is vested in other public agencies. The Council finds
that these jurisdictions can and should implement such measures.
However~ because the nature and extent of potential cumulative
impacts from future development are presently speculative and
unknown, and the degree to which other jurisdictions will implement
recommended mitigation measures is uncertain, the Council cannot
determine at this time the extent to which the recommended measures
will be implemented outside the City's boundaries and also cannot
determine the extent to which these measures, if imnlemented, will
lessen or avoid the identified potential cumulative impact. This
cumulative impact therefore remains potentially significant.
4all UTILITIES. ENEROr~AND INFRASTRUCTURE
4.11-3 The proposed projects could use water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4 .11.-3 requires that in order to reduce
water consumption, the project design shall incorporate measures to
maximize the efficient use of water and minimize total water
consu1nption. Specific measures to be included are the following:
All landscape designs shall incorporate and address the
City Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. The project
sites would be subject to an annual ·maximum water
allowance for landscaping.
The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of
Palo Alto Utilities Department~ Resource Management
Division to determine other conservation related
improvements that would apply to the projects.
The EIR concluded that because final plans have not been
completed by the applicant. specifying how water, particularly for
landscaping, would be efficiently used 1 there existed a potential
that water could be used wastefully by the project. The Council
finds that the adopted mitigation measure will lessen this
potentially significant impact to insignificance by ensuring that
final landscaping and construction plans meet current City Water
Efficiency Standards and incorporate additional conservation
measures if recommended by City staff.
37
91070liac003JSI7
• •
4.11-4 Con•truction of the propoeed improvaaenta could 4iarupt
existing water eervieea.
Mitigation measure 4.11-4 provides that prior to the start of
construction of infrastructure, the project applicant shall provide
a plan for review and approval to the City of Palo Alto Director of
Utilities outlining the approach to be taken to minimize the impact
to existing utilities and customers~
The EIR determined that operations necessary to connect
infrastructure associated with the project to existing service
lines and facilities could result in potentially significant
interruptions of utility services for existing users, specifically
interruptions of water service {Impact 4·11-4}f wastewater service
( Impact 4 -11 · 11 ) , e 1 e c t rica 1 service { Impact 4 -11 -1 7) and gas
service (Impact 4~11-24.} The Council finds t.hat the adopted
mitigation measure wi~l lessen each of these potentially
significant impacts to a less than significant. level by requiring
the applicant to submit and obtain approval of plans which will
provide for completion of all utility connections for the project
with the minimu."'ti necessary interruption of existing serv·ices.
4.11-7 Cumulative development could use water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 1.1-7 provides that the City shall ensure
that each new project approved within the City requiring ARB
approval is required to be consistent with and implement the City
policies and programs related to water conservation.
The EIR concluded that existing City policies and programs are
adequate to avoid cumulative wasteful use of water, and that a
significant adverse impact had the potential to occur only if the
City failed to continue to implement these policies and programs.
The reconunended mitigation measure provides that the City will
continue to implement existing water conservation policies by
making compliance a condition of ARB approval for at1 new projects.
While implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the Stanford West Apartments project, the
Council finds that this mitigation measure can and should be
implemented with respect to future projects within the City and
will lessen the identified potentially significant C\.11.'1\ulative
impact to insignificance.
4.11-9 The proposed projects would require improvement of the
existing 21-inch wastewater line.
!-litigation measure 4.11-9 requires that in the event that
open-trench technology is used, the project applicant shall ensure
that the new 24-inch wastewater line is constructed coincident
with, and placed in the right-of-way of, Palo Road, during Phase I
of project construction, thereby avoiding potential biological
impacts and conflicts with future uses associated with the
alternate location of the line.
38
970702 lac 0031587
• •
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the potential significant adverse impacts associated
with construction of a new 21" wastewater line to a less than
significant level. This mitigation measure requires the applicant
to either use technology which avoids trenching and resulting tree
removal in the Stanford arboretum, or to relocate the route of the
replacement pipeline along existing right-of-way containing no
significant environmental resources in order to avoid impacts to
the arboretum.
4.11-10 The proposed projects would generate additional
wastewater flows that could exceed the capac.ity of the existing
27-inch wastewater line.
Mitigation measure 4.11-lO(a) provides that if the proposed
project is developed prior to the Palo Alto t~edical Foundation
(PAMF) project, the project applicant shall perform flow metering
and a capacity study of the 27-inch wastewater line, and shall be
responsible for the costs of the improvement associated with the
projects. All aspects of construction within the railroad
right-of-way shall meet Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(PCJPB)requirements and shall be approved by the PCJPB.
Mitigation measure 4~11-lO(b} provides that if the PAMF
project is developed prior to the proposed projects: the project
applicant shall coordinate with the Palo Alto Utilities Department
and the PAMF project engineers to ensure that the proposed
downstream 27-inch wastewater line is enlarged with adequate
ca.paci ty for the proposed Stanford West housing and Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion projects.
The EIR concluded that the project, in conjunction with the
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion and proposed PAMF expansion
project, would likely result in cumulative wastewater flows which
exceed the capacity of the existing 27n wastewater line serving
these projects. The Council finds that ado~tion of these
mitigation measures will lessen this potential impact to
insignificance by requiring the applicant to bear the costs of all
improvements determined necessary to provide ade~Jate wastewater
line capacity for all three projects, and that all improvements
within the railroad right-of-way crossed by the pipeline be
constructed with the approval of the PCJPB~ which maintains the
rail lines.
4.11-11 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing wastewater services.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 11-11 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4, discussed above.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
39
970702 lac 0031 587
------------------------------------···--·----------~-
• •
4.11·13 Cumulative develQPment could require major infrastructure
improvements to the existing wastewater system.
Mitigation measure 4.11·13(a) recommends that the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Department ensure that developers responsible for
construction of new wastewater lines coordinate with all other
parties intending to utilize the line.
Mitigation measure 4.11-13 (b) recommends that sewer line
capacity studies satisfactory to the City's Director of Utilities
be conducted prior to initiating future cumulative development.
Mitigation measure 4.11-l3(c) recomrrtends that all final
designs for the sizing of new sewer mains shall be based on
infilt.ration from a 20-year storm and peak base wastewater flow.
The EIR concluded that lack of coordinated planning for future
development could result in failure to adequately size area
wastewater lines, resulting in future need to again upgrade these
lines to provide needed capacity. The recommended mitigation
measures provide for full evaluation and correct sizing of mains
prior to cumulative development. The Council finds that adopti-on
of these measures will lessen the project1 S contribution to this
potential cumulative impact to a less~than significant level.
These mitigation measures will alsc lessen the overall potential
cumulative impact to a less than significant level since
implementation of these measures will result in provision of
adequate long-term capacity for all reasonably foreseeable
development.
4.11·17 Construction of the proposed ~provements could disrupt
existing electrical services.
Mitigation measure 4.11-17 requires implemen.t~tion of
mitigation measure 4.11-4 for all Sand Hill Corri~?r projects.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4.11·24 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing gas services.
Mitigation measure 4.11-24 implementation of mitigation
measure 4. 11·· 4 for all Sand Hill Corridor projects.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND SCHOQLS
4.12-4 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of fire suppression service calls to the Palo Alto Fire Department
(PAPD).
Mitigation measure 4.12-4 identifies three alternative means
for offsetting cumulative increased demands on Palo Alto Fire
40
97070llac 0031 S87
.-----------------------"""-""--
• •
Department resources. Condition of approval 2.1 for the project
adopt the third of these alternate means, specifically:
The City will provide additional resources to the PAFD
through the City's General Fund from the increased tax
revenues generated by the Sand Hill Corri.dor projects and
other future cumulative projects.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified cumulative impact on fire suppression services to a
less than significant level for each of the Sand Hill Corridor
projects and future development. Cost and revenue projections for
the approved projects indicate that increased tax revenues from the
projects and other potential future development will be more than
adequate to fund additional resources for the PAFD necessary to
maintain current levels of service throughout the City. The
Council also finds that the alternative means of funding increased
PAFD resources identified in EIR mitigation measure 4.12-4,
specifically (1) fair share applicant funding of new PAFD
personnel, and {2) fair-share contributions from future projects,
are not necessary based on current information to maintain adequate
fire protection withln the City and would result in imposing
unnecessary special additional costs on new development.
4.12·5 CUmulative development would increase the annual number
of m~dical emergency service calls to the PAFD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-5 identifies two alternative means of
covering costs of additional emergency medical services should
increases in current personnel and/or equipment prove necessary to
meet future demand. Condition of approval 2.m provide that the
City shall adopt the second of these alternatives, specifically,
the City shall provide additional medi-van resources to.the PAFD if
needed with general fund increases from tax revenues generated by
the projects and other future cumulative projects.,,
The Council has adopted the second of these mitigation
alternatives for the Sand Hill Corridor projects. The Council
finds that the adopted mitigation measure will lessen the
identified potential cumulative impact on emergency medical
services to a less than significant level. Cost and revenue
projections indicate that increased tax revenues from the Sand Hill
Corridor projects and other potential future development will be
adequate to fund additional emergency medical resources as needed
to maintain current levels of service throughout the City. The
Council also finds that the alternative means of funding increased
emergency medical services identified in EIR mitigation measure
4.12-5, specifically that future development projects directly pay
a fair share toward a medi-van unit or, is not necessary to
maintain adequate level of emergency medical services based on
current information.
41
970702 lac 0031:587
• •
4.12·6 Increased construction traffic
development could reduce PAPD reaponae tiaea.
from cumulative
Mitigation measure 4.12-6 provides that as part of the project
approval process, the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and
Community Environment shall ensure tne following:
All projects coordinate with the PAFD and PAPD to prepare
an emergency response plan for the construction period
that specifies alternate emergency response routes to the
project site and vicinity which meet the Departments'
response time goals; and
The Emergency Response Plan for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects will specify procedures to allow simultaneous
construction without increasing emergency response times
to an unacceptable level.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project Is potential impact on PAFD emergency
response times to insignificance. This measure ensures that
deta i 1 ed pl ar..s \Ifill be developed and imp 1 emen ted to ensure that
existing o::· adeq:...:ate alternative response routes will be kept open
at all tiffies to pe~~it PAFD responses to all service areas within
PAFD response time standards.
4.12-8 Design of the proposed projects could present security
risks to occupants and police patrol personnela
Mitigation measure 4~12·8 provides that the applicant6 S
lighting and l~"'ldscapin.g plans will be reviewed with the Palo Alto
Police Department (PAPD) to eliminate safety risks.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation. measure
will lessen the identified potential safety impact to a less than
significant level. This measure will ensure that.,, qualified City
police officers will review lighting and landscaping plans so that
plans are designed to elirr~nate potential security hazards such as
poorly lit areas along walkways.
4.12-10 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of police service calls to the PAPD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-10 identifies three alternate means of
funding additional police services to offset increased demand on
Palo Alto Police Department resources.. Condition 1. j of the
project conditions of approval provides that the City shall adopt
the second of these alternatives, specifically, the City shall fund
additional PAPD resources from increased tax revenues generated by
the projects and other future cumulative projects,
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the potential cumulative impact of the project and of new
development generally on police services to a less than significant
level. Cost and revenue projections indicate that increased tax
42
910102 lac 0031 Si7
• •
revenues from the Sand Hill Corridor projects and other potential
future development will be adequate to fund additional police
resources as needed to maintain current levels of service
throughout the City.
4.12-11 Designs of cumulative development projects could present
security risks to occupants and police patrol personnel.
lt'Iitigation measure 4 .. 12 .. 11 reccmnends that the City Department
of Planning and Community Environment ensure that future project
lighting and landscaping are reviewed with the PAPD to reduce
safety risks. The ARB shall provide final review and approval.
This mitigation measure has been effectively implemented with
respect to the Stanford West Apartments project through the
adoption of mitigation measure 14.12-B. The Council finds that
adoption of the measure will reduce the project 1 S contribution to
any potential significant cumulative impact to a less than
significant level. This mitigation measure has also been adopted
in conjunction with approval of the Stanford West Senior Housing
project. Adoption of this mitigation measure as a policy governing
review and approval of all future developme~t within the City ·is
beyond the scope of the decision and approvals granted for the
Stanford West Senior Housing project. However, the Council finds
that the recommended mitigation measur~ can and should be
implemented in relation to future development projects l.a:ithin the
City.
4.12-12 Increased construction traffic from
development could increase PAPD response t~es.
cumulative
Mitigation measure 4.12-12 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 by all approved Sand Hill Road Corridor
Projects.
This mitigation measure has been implemented,by adoption of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 for the each of the approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects. The Council finds that implementation of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 will lessen the cu..rnulative impact of
construction of the projects on PAPD response times to a less than
signifi~ant level.
4 .12-13 The proposed projects would increase enrollments and
associated resource demands on the Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) .
Mitigation measure 4 .l.2 -13 (a) recormnends that the project
applicant negotiate with the PAUSD for the following mitigation
measures:
970702 lac: 0031587
Fair share funding for new classrooms and other costs not
covered by statutory development fees; or
Fair share of funding for the reopening of closed
facilities.
43
• •
Mitigation measure 4.12-13(b) recommends that the applicant
negotiate with the PAUSD to fund its fair share of 11 new teaching
positions in area schools.
The Council finds that implementation of these measures is
beyond the authority and control of the City and that adoption of
theBe measures by the City is therefore infeasible. The City's
authority to impose mitigation measures for school related impacts
ia reatricted by state law. Implementation of the identified
mitigation measures is dependent upon voluntary agreement between
the applicant and PAUSD. Copies of conununications between t.he
applicant and PAUSD which have been received by the Council
indicate that the applicant has initiated efforts to ascertain and
potentially contribute a fair share of school costs resulting from
implementation of the project which are not covered by increased
tax revenues or development fees from the project. However t
because implementation and effectiveness of the proposed voluntary
mitigation remains uncertain, the Council finds that the identified
impacts on public schools must be considered potentially
aignificant.
4.12~14 Cumulative developmentH including the proposed Stanford
West Apartments Project, would cause K-l2th grade enrollments to
exceed PAUSD school capacity of 916 students or 12 percent in year
2004-2005.
The EIR proposed the adoption of mitigation measure 4.12-14 to
mitigate this identified cumulative impact. Mitigation measure
4.12·14 recommends that the City adopt a policy that encourages all
future developers to contribute their fair share over and above
payment of the development fee to mitigate school impacts.
The Council recognizes that cumulative impacts on public
schools are potentially significant, and further finds that these
impacts would remain potentially significant whether or not the
suggested mitigation measure is adopted as a policy of the City
since contributions by developers would remain voluntary regardless
of City encouragement. Adoption of a City policy of encouraging
future developers to contribute school mitigation funds in excess
of mandatory development fees is beyond the scope of approvals ·tor
the Stanford West Apartments project; and the Council has not
adopted this mitigation. However, the Council has taken substantial
steps to encourage the project applicant to discuss and fund
mutually acceptable mitigation measures with school district, and
can and will continue to t.ake similar steps to encourage voluntary
additional contributions by developers of future projects with the
goal of fully offsetting any impacts which cannot be mitigated
through mandatory development fees and tax revenue increases
associated with new development~
44
970702 lac 0031587
• •
4.12-17 The operation of the proposed projects would increase
solid waste generation in the City of Palo Alto requiring increased
diversion to meet the goals of AB 939.
Mitigation measure 4.12·l7(a) requires that as a condition of
project approval, the applicant shall prepare and obtain approval
from the City Public Works Department of a landfill diversion
management program that meets the diversion goals of the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and AB939. The program
shall include specific provisions detailed in the EIR.
Mitigation measure 4.12-l?(b} recommends that the City re~~ire
all new development projects to prepare operation recycling
programs which will meet the AB939 diversion goal of 50 percent by
2000. The program shall include specific provisions detailed in
the EIR.
The Council finds that adoption of mitigation measure
4.12-17(a) will lessen the project's potential solid waste impacts
to a less than significant level. This mitigation measure requires
the applicant to develop, with City supervision, a plan which will
ensure that solid wastes from the project are processed in a manner
which ensure compliance with the recycling goals of AB939.
Adoption and enforcement of mitigation measure 4.12-17(a) will also
implement mitigation measure 4.12-17(b) with respect to the
project. Adoption of mitigation measure 4.12-l?(b) as a policy
governing review and approval of all future development within the
City is beyond the scope of approvals granted for the Stanford West
Apartments project. However, the Council finds that adoption of
the proposed mitigation measure can and should be adopted in
relation to future development projects within the City.
4.12-18 The proposed projects would increase solid waste
generation in the City of Palo Alto during construction ~equiring
increased diversion to meet the goals of AB 939. ·
Mitigation measure 4.12-18 requires the applicant to prepare
and implement a construction recycling plan approved by the City
Public Works Department. The plan shall include specific steps to
achieve the City's short-ter.m SRRE diversion goal of 30-40 percent
through various specified measures.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified potential solid waste impact to a less than
significant level. The approved recycling plan will ensure that
provision is made for recovering all recyclable wastes generated
during construction, thus avoiding unnecessary placement of
recyclable materials in landfills.
45
970702 lac 0031 !i 87
• •
4.12·19 CU.Ulative develQpaent anticipated by the City through
Year 2010. including the proposed projects, would increase solid
waete generation by 5.5 percent over 1995 levels to 155,650 tons
per year based. on the projected growth of population and employees.
~tigation measure 4.12~19(a} recommends that the City require
significant new development projects to prepare construction
recycling plans as part of the project approval process. The
construction plan shall include specific steps to achieve the AB939
diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000 through various specified
measures.
Mitigation measure 4.12-19(b) recommends that the City require
new development projects to prepare long-term operational recycling
programs as part of project approval process. The programs should
meet the AB939 diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000, and include
various additional specified elements
These mitigation measures have been effectively applied to the
Stanford West Apartments project through the adoption of mitigation
measures 4.12-l?(a) and 4.12-18. The Council finds that adoption
of those measures will reduce the project's contribution to
potential cu..rnulative solid waste impacts to a less than significant
level. Adoption of mitigation measure 4.12-19(a) and 4.12-19(b)
as policies governing review and approval of all future development
within the City is beyond the scope of the decision and approvals
granted for the Stanford West Apartments project. However, the
Council finds that the proposed mitigation measure can and should
be adopted in relation to future development projects approved by
the City.
5, 2 GRQI!TB tmeUCING IMPACTS
The EIR concluded that the Stanford West Apartments.project
will ~~ve a significant growth inducing impact in that upgrading of
the existing 21" sewer line serving the project a'rea to the 24 n
line necessary to serve the project and the Stanford West Senior
Housing and Stanford Shopping Center Expansion projects will remove
an obstacle to growth of the Stanford Medical Center, which has
announced tentative plans for expansion. The EIR does not identify
any potential mitigation measures for this growth-inducing impact.
The 24• sewer line will be constructed with the minimum size pipe
available with sufficient capacity to ensure adequate service of
the approved Sand Hill Corridor development projects. Since excess
capacity will still be provid~d by this sewer line which could
facilitate expansion of the Stanford t~edical Center or other
development, this impact is significant.
The EIR concluded that the overall set of roadway improvements
may serve to remove an obstacle to development of the contemplated
400,000 square foot expansion of the Stanford Medical Center. The
traffic impacts of such development of the Medical Center as well
as the impacts of cumulative development along the Sand Hill
corridor were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis
contained in the EIR. The EIR finds the impacts of such cumulative
46
970701 '-'003U87
• •
development within the Sand Hill corridor •ignificant, as discussed elsewhere in these findings.
47
• •
PUT II
ALTD.HATIVSS ro TRB PROJECT
The Council has also considered the alternatives to the
project analyzed in the FEIR. Based on the following
considerations, the Council has determined that all identified
alternatives to the project are infeasible. The findings set forth
below stating this Council's reasons for rejecting each alternative
in favor of the project describe several separate grounds for
rejecting each alternative, each of which this Council has
determined constitutes an independent basis for this Council's
decision to approve the project and to reject the proposed
alternative.
No Proje~t -No Development
This alternative assumes that no development is permitted on
the proposed project site and the site remains vacant open space.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible because:
( 1)
{2)
The alternative would preclude develooment of needed
affordable and market rate rental housin9 within the
City; and
The alternative is inconsistent
Comprehensive Plan designation
residential development.
with longstanding City
of the property for
Rejection of the project in favor of this alternative would
necessarily defeat the project objective of providing new
affordable and market rate rental housing in the area and would
further defeat Stanford's objective of providing new rental housing
for employees in close proxilT'.ity to the Stanford campus, thus
reducing vehicle travel for Stanford employees and improving the
area's overall jobs/housing balance. Precluding residential
development of the property would also be inconsistent with the
City's existing comprehensive plan and zoning designations of the
property which provide for residential development of 10-40 units
per acre on the property.
No Project -No Action
This alternative assumes that the current development plan is
rejected and future development permitted in accordance with
existing zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the site.
The City's existing comprehensive plan and zoning designations of
the property allow development of 10-40 residential units per acre.
The EIR assumes that development under this alternative would
consist of 800-900 resi1ential units. The Council finds that this
alternative is infeasit.le for the following reasons~
(1) By requirirg preparation and processing of new
development plans, the alternative would result in a
48
970702 lac 0031 S87
• •
substantial, unacceptable further delay in production of
needed affordable and market rate rental housing;
(2) Development under this alternative would result in many
worse environmental impacts than the proposed project due
to increased development density and larger development
footprint, increased traffic, air quality and other
impacts associated w5.th increased number of residents on
the site. This alternative would not lessen any
environmental impacts of the project but would in most
cases result in more severe impacts and reduced ability
to mitigate these impacts through preservation of view
corridors, grassland habitat preservation~ avoidance of
archaeologically sensitive areas, and provision of
on-site recreational open space. The site plan of the
approved project has been substantially modified through
the 1993-1994 public outreach process, subsequent review
with City staff, and the 1996-1997 public review process
to a site plan that will facilitate a sense of ccrrm:..lnity1 disperse traffic on a grid street network and accorrrnodate
substantial open space. Redesign to a mere conventional
multiple family development would likely result in t-he
loss or reduction of these attributes of the approved
project. The Council finds that the approved project
represents an acceptable accommodation of competing
community concerns for creation of housing and protection
of community character and enviror~ental values, and that
any plan to accommodate greater amounts of housing would
result in unacceptable impacts and conflicts with these
community values.
75% Development Alternative
This alternative consists of development of the project site
at approximately 75% of the density of the approved project, or
about 471 residential units. Due to reduced·· density, this
alternative could reduce developed area by approximately 25\:,
allowing for an incremental reduction in most project impacts.
However, there is no guarantee that reduced density development
would necessarily result in a corresponding reduction in developed
area on the site. Even assuming that substantial reduction in
developed area was achieved, the project would still result in
significant and unavoidable land use, visual ~~d biological impacts
due to the change in character, loss of open space and loss of
grassland habitat which would result from any substantial
development on the project site.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible because:
(1) The alternative would result in an unacceptable loss of
needed rental housing units; and
(2) Reduction of the project by approximately 157 units would
result in continued demand and resulting pressure for
construction of new housing within the City or
49
970702 lac 0031 S81
• •
surrounding area, particularly pressure for development
of new employee housing on existing open ~pace areas on
Stanford University lands.
Implementation of this alternative would have the immediate
unacceptable effect of eliminating needed rental housing units from
the };)reject. Construction of all units in the proposed project is
required to assist the City in meeting its anticipated need for new
housing units fer the period 1996-2002. Projections prepared by
the Association of Bay Area Governments, which serve as the basis
for the City's 1990 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and the
draft Comprehensive Plan Housing Element currently being developed
by the City quantify the City's fair share of regional housing
demand for this period to be a total of 1244 new residential units,
including 276 units for very low income residents, 208 units for
low income residents, 299 units for moderate income residents and
461 units for above-moderate income residents. Evidence presented
to the Council during the hearings on the project indicate that
there is a particularly acute need for construction of new rental
housing of the t~~e offered by the project. This acute need for
new rental housing is further confirmed by continuing very low
vacancy rates of 1% or less for rental housing within the City
which have been documented in the Housing Element Technical
Document prepared in conjunction with the City's current draft
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Elimination of approximately
157 units from the project would substantially and unacceptably
impair the City# s ability to provide needed new housing fvV'ithin the
City and to contribute its fair share to satisfying state and
regional housing demands.
Implementation of the 75% density alternative also would not
avoid the environmental impacts of the project which have been
shown to be of greatest public concern, i.e. loss of undeveloped
open space and related natural habitat and substantial visual and
other impacts associated with change in character of the project
site. Implementation of this alternative would ·result only in
incremental reductions in many of the project's impacts, and in
somewhat greater ability to mitigate certain impacts such as
potential impacts to archaeological resources and loss of grassland
habitat. The Council does not believe that these incremental
reductions in environmental impacts are significant enough to
justify the substantial reduction in the number of housing units in
the project.
The Council finds that in the overall balance of growth
management planning and environmental considerations, efficient use
of the project site, which has been designated for housing
development for many years in the City's Comprehensive Plan, for
the maximum number of residential units which can be accommodated
consistent with environmental and design constraints is preferable
to reduced density development which will result in continued unmet
demand and pressure for construction of affordable new housing,
particularly new rental housing.
so
970702 lac 0031 '87
• •
5Qt pevetogment A1tetnative
This ~lternative consists of development of the project site
at approximately sot of the density of the approved project, or
about 315 residential units. Due to reduced density, this
alternative could potentially permit reduction of developed area by
approximately sot, allowing for greater design flexibility and
incremental reduction in most project impacts, including
preservation of approximately 8 acres of additional grasslands as
compared with the proposed project. However, there is no guarantee
that a SOt reduced development density would necessarily result in
a corresponding reduction in developed area on the site. Even
assuming that a substantial reduction in developed area was
achieved,~ the project would still result i.n significant and
unavoidable land use, visual and biological impacts due to the
change in character, loss of open space and loss of grassland
habitat area which will result from any substantial development on
the project site.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible because:
{1; The alternative would result in an unacceptable loss -of
needed rental housing units; and
(2) Reduction of the project by approximately 315 units would
result in continued demand and resulting pressure for
construction of new housing within the City or
surrounding areat particularly pressure for development
of new employee housing on existing open space areas on
Stanford University lands.
As in the case of the 75t development alternative,
implementation of this alternative would have the immediate (only
more severe} unacceptable effect of eliminating needed rental
housing units from the project. Construction of all units in the
proposed project is required to assist the City '-'in meeting its
anticipated need for new housing units for the period 1996-2002,
and to offset the current acute shortage of rental housing.
Elimination of approximately 315 units from the project would
seriously and unacceptably impair the City's ability to provide
needed new rental housing within the City and to contribute its
fair share to satisfying state and regional housing objectives.
While implementation of this alternative also would reduce
most environmental impacts of the project, in some cases
substantially, the alternative would not avoid the significant
environmental impacts of the project. which have been shown to be of
greatest public concern, i.e. loss of undeveloped open space and
related natural habitat and substantial visual and other impacts
associated with change in character of the project site. The
Council does not find that the incremental reductions in
environmental impacts associated with this alternative are
significant enough to justify the loss of 315 housing units from
the project.
51
970102 be OOJ1S87
................ -----------------------------------------------• •
The Council finds that in the overall balance of growth
management considerations, efficient use of the project site, which
has been designated for housing development for many years in the
City's comprehensive plan, for the maximum number of residential
units which can be accommodated consistent with environmental and
design constraints. is preferable to reduced density development
which will result in continued unrnet demand and pressure for
construction of affordable new housing, particularly rental
housing.
No HouQing Alternative
The EIR also examined a •no-housing~ alternative which would
have consisted of approving 160,000 square feet of new commercial
space for the Stanford Shopping Center and approving the Sand Hill
Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project while
denying approval for the proposed Stanford West Apartments and
StanEord West Senior Housing projects. The primary purpose for
consideration of this alternative in the EIR was to examine the
effects on the area transportation system of approving the proposed
roadway improvements and proposed shopping center expansion
elements of the Sand Hill Corridor projects, without the addition
of traffic from housing projects. With respect to the Stanford
West Apartments project, the Council finds that this alternative is
infeasible for the reasons previously stated in reference to the No
Project-No Development alternative.
Housing_ With Limit.ed ShoiJping Centgr Dev.elopment
The EIR also exall\.ined a .. housing with limited shopping center
expansion" alterna~ive consisting of {1} approval of the Stanford
West Apartments and Stru*lford West Senior Housing; (2) construction
of 49,000 square feet of new Stanford Shopping Center space only;
(3) without any of the roadway improvements proposed in.~he Sand
Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project. The
Council does not consider this alternative to be an''alternative to
the Stanford West Apartments project.. This alternative was
evaluated in the EIR to examine the effects on the area
transportation system of approving residential development and
limited shopping expansion, without the benefit of major .a·rea
roadway improvements proposed in the Sand Hill Road Extension and
Related Roadway nmprovements. This alternative is discussed in the
findings relating to the Stanford Shopping Center project.
Alternate Sites:
Campus West Site
The Campus West alternative site is an undeveloped parcel
owned by Stanford located south of Sand Hill Road and across from
the Oak Creek Apartments which border the Stanford West Apartments
site. The Campus West site is currently outside the jurisdiction
of the City and entirely within the territory of the County of
Santa Clara. The EIR considered relocation of both the Stanford
West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects to this
52
97070llac 0031 S87
• •
site, and concluded that both could be substantially accommodated
with extensive redesign and a probable increase in building
heights. The EIR also noted that some reductions could be made in
the total number of units approved on the West Campus site to
better accommodate site constraints and provide for mitigation of
impacts. However, for purposes of considering this alternative,
the Council has assumed that all 628 units of the approved Stanford
West Apartment project could be acc~~ted on the Campus West
site without resulting in greater environ..tUental impacts for th.is
alternative than predicted in the EIR-In comments on the DEIR,
some members of the public also commented that relocation of the
Stanford West Apartments alone to this site would allow increased
preservation of open space and design flexibility to mitigate or
avoid potential impacts of development on the site. In considering
this alternative, the Council has also considered the possibility
of relocating the Stanford West Apartments project only to the
Campus West site.
The Council finds that C~"npus West alte:·nativ-e is i.nfeasible
for the following reasons.
1. The alternative is inconsistent with existing Santa Clara
County and City of Palo Alto land use designations and
policies for use of the site; and
2. Implementation of this alternative is uncertain and
speculative and, even if implemented~ would involve
substantial unacceptable delay in development of needed
new affordable and market rate housing~
The Campus West site is presently designated in the Santa
Clara County General Plan and Stanford's general use permit as
"Major Educational and Institutional Uses . ., The land is also
designated in Stanford's master land use plans for "Major
Educational and Institutional Uses. • Stanf/1rd ~ s long term
development plans for this property contemplat': ·tlevelopment of
educational, research or other facilities directly related to the
University's academic mission rather than non-University housing or
income-producing uses. While other locations are available for
expansion of existing acad~~c uses on the Stanford campus, some'of
these lands are presently designated as open space and not approved
for substantial new development. Because development of housing on
the Campus West site is inconsistent with Stanford's existing
long-tenn plans, it is uncertain that Stanford would attempt to
implement this alternative if requested by the City. Failure by
Stanford to pursue this alternative would result in loss of all new
housing associated with the project. If Stanford does elect to
pursue this alternative, implementation would require submittal of
an entirely new application and commencement of a new approval
process by the County of Santa Clara, or by the City if annexation
is proposed as part of the project. Due to the size of the project
and potential environmental impacts of development at this
alternate location, the approval process would necessarily involve
a complete redesign of the project, a new environmental impact
report and development review process, resulting in substantial
53
97070llac 0031587
• •
delays in construction of any actual new housing. Because many of
the potential impacts of this alternative, including traffic, loss
of open spacet loss of habitat area and change in character of the
area are similar in nature to the impacts of the approved project,
it is probable that implementation of the alternative would also be
subject to public opposition similar to that encountered for the
approved project.
Development of rental housing on the Campus West site is
inconsistent with existing County land use designation for the
property. Under existing County policies and agreements between
Stanford, the County and the City, any proposal for development of
the housing project on the site would include annexation of. the
property to the City. Although the City would have primary final
approval authority for the project, the City cannot prejudge its
ultimate decision on any such application. Implementation of the
alternative is therefore uncertain even assuminq annexation is
proposed. Because there is already a substant ia-1 and immediate
need for additional housing in the City, the Council believes that
the additional delay and uncertainty of implementation of this
alternative are unacceptable and render the alternative infeasible.
In determining this alternative t:o be infeasible~ the Council
has considered the limited potential environmental advantages of
this alternative over the approved project and concluded that these
advantages do not justify substantial further delay in providing
needed housing. The EIR concluded that since the amount and type
of development on the Campus West site would be similar to t::he
approved project, the rnaj ori ty of impacts would remain
approximately the same. Some impacts, such as impacts on cul tura.l
resources, riparian habitat and already less·· than-significant noise
and visual imoacts on residents of Menlo Park would be further
reduced or avoided by this alternative. As discussed on page 6.1-
65 of Volume 3 of the EIR, even though the site is partially
screened from Sand Hill Road by a line of young Oak trees, the size
of the buildings would be such that development of this site would
change the existing rural character of the site to an urban
character. It is not likely that mitigation could be provided for
this impact. Because a portion of the site is presently
undeveloped open space and contains extensive grasslands and oak
habitat, significant impacts on land use, biological resources as
well as the change in character of the area would still result from
the alternative. These impacts would remain significant, although
less severe, if the Stanford West Apartment project only were
developed to the Campus West site without the addition of the
Stanford West Senior Housing project. The Campus West alternative
also would not preclude eventual development and resulting impacts
of development at the Stanford West Apartments site for reasons
discussed in relation to the No-Project alternative, and may
therefore ultimately result in n<J net environmental advantage.
Overall these incremental reductions in some impacts associated
with the approved project de not justify continued delay in
construction of · needed new rental housing nor the risk of
large-scale loss of potential housing units if this uncertain
alternative is not ultimately approved and implemented.
54
970702 lac 0031587
• •
Bickgy's Hyatt -Sand Hill Road/I-280 Alternative Site
The EIR evaluated two additional alternative sites which could
collectively be developed to accommodate the 630 units originally
proposed in the Stanford West Apartments project. Two
non-adjoining sites were considered as an alternative in
recognition of the fact that there are no other parcels within the
area, other than ~he proposed site and Campus West site, which are
both large enough to accommodate the project and potentially
available for housing development. Accommodation of the project at
alternate sites other than the Campus West site would thus require
division of the project into separate units and development at
separate locations. Other potential alternate sites which could
accommodate portions of the project were also considered during
seeping for the project and determined to be infeasible. A summary
of reasons for rejection of these other potential alternate sites
appears in the EIR. The Council also finds that each of the
potential alternative sites evaluated and rejected from further
consideration during seeping for the EIR is not a feasible
alternative site for the project for the reasons identified in the
EIR.
In considering the feasibility of the Rickey's Hyatt -Sand
Hill Road/I-280 alternative, the Council has considered the
feasibility of each site separately to determine whether either
could feasibly be utilized to accommodate any portion of the
project and therefore partially achieve the objective of providing
new housing. The Council finds, for the reasons stated below, that
neither of the two parcels could feasibly be utilized for a part of
the development. The Council also finds that in the event that
either one of the sites were determined to be feasible for a
portion of the project, this proposed alternative would remain
infeasible as a whole due to the unacceptable loss of housing units
which would result from only partial development of the project at
a single alternate site. ·
In finding this alternative infeasible, the Council is aware
that the EIR has designated this alternative as the environmentally
superior alternative among those considered in the EIR. The
Council finds, however~ that the extremely uncertain _and
speculative nature of these alternatives, and the certainty of
substantial additional delay in construction of needed new housing
even if this alternative could be implemented, render the
alternative infeasible despite its potential environmental
advantages. In addition, this altF~rnative would not preclude
eventual development and resulting impacts of development at the
Stanford West Apartments site for reasons discussed in relation to
the No-Project alternative, and may therefore ultimately result in
no net environmental advantage.
Rickey's Hyatt Parcel: The Rickey's Hyatt site consists of an
approximately 14 acre area east of El Camino Real and south of
Arastradero Road which the EIR assumed could be developed to
accommodate approximately 200 apartment units under current City
zoning. The site is currently developed with a hotel and served by
55
970702 lac 0031 587
• •
all necessary public services. The EIR indicates that because the
site is already developed, implementation of this alternative would
have substantially fewer environmental impacts than the approved
project, although some impacts on neighboring residential uses
could occur.
The Council finds that development of the Rickey's Hyatt site
as an alternative to the project is infeasible for the following
reasons:
(1)
(-' \~)
Implementation of this alternative is uncertain and
speculative and would involve substantial unacceptable
delay in development of needed new affordable and market
rate rental housing; and
The alternative would not achieve Stanford's objective of
providing new employee housing close to the existing
s·:anford ca.rnpus .
..a.~though the site is located within the City and is presently
zoned to permit residential development, Stanford does not
presently O\ltTl the Rickey( s Hyatt sit.e. Implementation of this
alternative would thus require a lengthy and uncertain process of
acqJiring the site, preparing and processing development plans and
conducting public environ.rnental review. Because the outcome of
this process cannot presently be fully predicted and is highly
uncertain, this alternative is too speculative to be considered a
viable alternative to the approved project by the Council. In
addition, even if this alternative could be successfully
implemented, the lengthy process of site acquisition, preparation
of new plans and processing through City development review would
result in unacceptable substantial delays in actual construction of
needed new housing units~
The location of this alternate site is also signi'ficantly
distant from the Stanford main campus areas and too ... far from major
Stanford facilities to provide for convenient pedestrian or bicycle
access, thus defeating one of the objectives of the approved
project~ The Council recognizes that Stanford's objective of
providing new housing for campus employees close to the Stanford
campus is consistent with sound public planning policies and should
be supported_
Sand Hill Road/I-280 Parcel: The SHR/I-280 site consists of
approximately 21 acres located within the City of Menlo Park near
the intersection of Sand Hill Road and the I-280 Freeway. The site
is currently undeveloped and could physically accommodate
approximately 430 apartment units but would have to be rezoned to
permit such development.
The Council finds that development of this parcel as an
alternative to the project is infeasible for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed alternative is inconsistent with existing
zoning designations and planned use for the property;
56
976?02 lac 0031587
• •
(2) Implementation of this alternative is uncertain and would
involve substantial delay in development of needed new
affordable and market rate rental housing; and
(3) The alternative would not achieve Stanford's objective of
providing new employee housing close to the existing
Stanford campus.
The Sand Hill Road/I-280 site is zoned for hProfessional
Administration and Office• uses under the City of Menlo Park's
current zoning, but is presently undeveloped open space and rural
in character. Stanford cur.rently owns the property. However,
implementation of this alternative would require preparation and
processing of new development plans, new environmental review and
approval of a rezoning by the City of Menlo Park. Because there is
substantial uncertainty as to whether the City of Menlo Park would
approve the proposed development i practical viability of this
alternative is uncertain. In addition, corrrnencement of an entirely
new planning and approval process with the City of Menlo Park would
result in unacceptable substantial delays in construction of needed
new housing units.
The location of this alternate site is also too far from the
Stanford main campus areas to provide for easy pedestrian or
bicycle access, thus defeating one of the objectives of the
approved project. The Council recognizes that Stanford's objective
of providing new housing for ca~pus ewployees close to the Stanford
campus is consistent with sound public plan.T1ing policies and should
be supported.
Hoover Pavilion/El Camino Park Alternative
At the request of the City's Planning Commission, Chapter 13
of the FEIR evaluated an alternative to the project consisting of
locating the Stanford West Apartments project on two undeveloped
parcels south of Sand Hill Road. The two proposed alternate sites
consist of (1) the Hoover site, consisting of approximately 18.5
.acres in the Stanford Arboretum lands surrounding the Hoover
Pavilion, and (2) the El Camino Park site, consisting of 3 acres 'in
El Camino Park. These sites were initially considered as possible
alternative sites during seeping for the EIR, but were found not to
be feasible alternate sites for housing at this time by City staff
and therefore not discussed in the DEIR. The council finds that
the Hoover site and El Camino Park alternate sites, either
collectively or individually, are not reasonable, realistic or
feasible alternatives to the project for the following reasons.
Hoover Site
(1) Development of housing on most of the site would be
inconsistent with existing land use designations and
planning policies of the County of Santa Clara, which
presently exercises actual development control over the
property, inconsistent with land use designations in the
57
970702 lac 0031 ~87
• •
City Comprehensive Plan which would apply in the event of
annexation, and inconaistent with land use olans and
policies of Stanford University. ·
(2} Development of the site would result in unacceptable
historic and aesthetic impacts on the Stanford Arboretum.
{3) Implementation of the alternative is speculative and
uncertain and would in any case result in unacceptable
delays in development of needed new housing within the
area.
Approximately five acres of the proposed Hoover site is
designated for possible housing development in the applicable land
use plans of Stanford University. Development of this portion of
the site alone, however, would result in unacceptable loss of
housing units from the project. The County of Santa Clara r s
general plan and Stanford's general use penni t designate most
portions of the site for academic and open space uses, and consider
most of these lands important for sce!:.ic beauty, visual relief and
wildlife values, as well as for acadern~c potential. Stanford's
Land Use Plan designates the rnajority of the site Special Reserve
and Open Space (Stanford Arboretu.rn) . Portions of the site are also
designated as Special Condition Areas A {the El Carnino Real
frontage) and D {the P~.lm Drive frontage), which both require a
separate County Use Permit for any future development.
Approximately 8 acres of the site are designated in Stanford's
Arboretum Region Plan a.s "'Untouchable,' that is~ h3ving Lhe
highest historic significance." The City's Comprehensive Plan also
contains policies which would apply to the property in the event of
annexation to the City, and which establish the City~s preferred
use of the lands. These policies also preclude development of
portions of the proposed Hoover site and re~Jire preservation of
land included in the Stanford Arboretum as open space. These land
use designations and policies reflect a long-term policy of
preserving the Stanford Arboretum& which occupies a substantial
portion of the site. as historically significant open space for the
Stanford campus. The Council finds these policies are supported .by
important and valid historic, aesthetic and plarL~ing considerations
which make development of the protected portions of the site
unacceptable and infeasible. The Council recognizes that
relocation of the project to the Hoover site would result in
certain environmental trade-offs, including temporary prese1~ation
of the existing open space and grassland habitat area at the
Stanford West Apartments site at the expense of loss of historic
open space and a substantial number of trees at the Hoover site.
The Council finds, however, that given the longstanding land use
policies providing for development of the Stanford West Apartments
site and favoring protection of the historic and aesthetic
qualities of the Stanford Arboretum, the environmental trade·offs
do not result in any net public benefit which would justify changes
to the established land use plans and policies for the area.
It is also uncertain whether Stanford University, as the owner
of the site, would pursue this proposed alternative if requested to
58
970702 lac 0031 ~87
____ ........ ----------------• •
do so by the City. Present agreements between the City and County
of Santa Clara provide that development of the site for any income
producing uses would be preceded by annexation to the City. While
the City would therefore likely have final approval authority over
any application for rental housing development on the Hoover site,
the City cannot prejudge its ultimate decision on any such
application, and implementation of the a.lternative is therefore
uncertain even if annexation were proposed. Regardless of whether
approval would ultimately be granted, redesign, reapplication and
conduct of a new development review process for this alternative
would result in substantial unacceptable delay in construction of
needed new housing.
El Camino Park Site:
The Council finds that development at the El Camino Park site
is not a feasible alternative to the project for the following
reasons:
(1) Development of housing on the site would be inconsistent
with existing City land use designations and policies
governing the site; and
(2} Implementation of this alternative is speculative and
uncertain due to the requirement for a public vote to
remove the existing park dedication status of the land,
and would involve unacceptable delays in development of
needed new housing.
Implemen.to.tion of this alternative ~'ould result in development
of approximately 75 apartment units on 3 acres of publicly leased
land in El Camino Park. The land is currently designated as Public
Parks in the City's comprehensive plan and zoned PF {Public
Facilities} , and is dedicated park land under the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Use of the land for other than park purposes may
be approved only by majority vote of Palo Alto voters in a popular
election. Because the outcome of the necessary popular election
cannot be predicted, implementation of this alternative is
unacceptably speculative and uncertain. In addition~ even if
approved by the voters, preparation and processing of new plans and
completion of development review for this alternative would result
in unacceptable substantial delays in actual construction of needed
new housing.
The Council also does not support conversion of dedicated park
lands to non-park uses in the absence of some return benefit to
public parks and recreation, such as might be obtained through a
land exchange, or other overriding public benefits. No potential
benefit to public parks or recreation has presently been identified
for this alternative, and the Council therefore find this
alternative unacceptable and infeasible on this additional policy
ground ..
59
970i02 lac 0031S87
• •
A4dit~onal Alternatives Proposed In pyblic Comments
Public Acgyisition/Preseryation
A number of commenters during the EIR process proposed that
the project site be preserved in an undeveloped state and dedicated
to various uses such as a nature preserve, low-intensity public
recreational space, gardens1 or similar non-developmental types of
uses or combinations of uses. In each of these cases the Council
finds that the alternative is infeasible because the alternative
would preclude the development of needed housing on the site and
would be inconsistent with the City's longstanding Comprehensive
Plan and zoning designations for the site. In addition,
implementation of these suggested preservation alternatives would
generally requi.re acquisition of the site by a public or non-profit
agency and ongoing expense for maintenancet insurance and other
costs associated with property ownership. No commenter has
identified a practical source of funds for either acquisition or
subsequent improvement, maintenance a·.nd management of the site, nor
does the Council believe that the acquisition and maintenance could
be carried out with City funds an6 revenues without unacceptable
impacts on other City programs. For these reasons the Council
believes that preservation alter~1atives proposed by members of the
public are not feasible, notwithstanding the understandable strong
desire to preserve the site as open space.
60
97010llac003l'i7
• •
BXBIBIT C
StJHPQID WEST SBMIQR HOUSING PROJICT
COOliCIL PDIDDJGS CO&CBRBDTG MITIGATION OP ENVIRONMBN'l'AL IMPACTS
U1D CONSIDERATIONS OP ALTERNATIVES
!he City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") has read
and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR")
prepared for the Stanford West Senior Housing project. The EIR has
been prepared for five projects including the Stanford West
Apar~T~nts~ Stanford West Senior Housing, Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion, Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway
Improvements ("SHRE/RRI"} projects, referred to collectively herein
as the ~sand Hill Corridor projects," and the Pasteur Drive Parcel
Annexation project. These projects are described in Chapt.er 3 of
the EIR, and include, as approved by the Councili the changes and
revisions described in Chapter 11 and in the "Final Summary .of
Project Changes R rr.ade a part of the EIR by the certifying
resolution.
P..;rsuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the
Council has considered each environmental impact of the Stanford
West Senior Housing project identified in the EIR, and each of the
mitigation measures and project alternatives evaluated in the EIR.
The Council's detailed findings for each significant
environmental impact or potentially significant environmental
impact identified in the EIR are set forth below. Each significant
or potentially significant environmental impact identified in the
EIR is listed in bold. Those mitigation measures adopted or
partially adopted by the Council are also numbered in bold. The
Council's reasons for rejection or partial rejection of certain
mitigation measures and reasons for selection among alternative
potential mitigation measures are described where appropriate ..
The Council's reasons for rejecting specific alternatives to
the project identified in the EIR are stated in Part II of these
findings.
1
• •
PART I
CBAHGBS AHD KITIGATIOlf KBAStJ1l&S ADOPTED TO RBDUCB IMPACTS
t.l LMm JlSI
4.1·5 Implementation of the proposed projects. in conjunction
with cumulative development within the Sand Bill Road Corridor,
would reBult in a change in character in the area.
The EIR concludes that there are no feasible mitigation
measures available which will substantially reduce the identified
significant land use impacts and that the identified impact is
therefore unavoidable. The Council also finds that although the
Stanford West Senior Housing project will not itself have a
significant adverse impact on existing land use, the cumulative
impact of changes to the existing cbaracter of the Sand Hill
corridor resulting from the approved Sand Hill Corridor projects
collectively will be significant. Changes and mitigation measures
have been included in the Stanford West Senior Housing project
which will lessen this cumulative irrroact. These measures are more
fully discussed in findings per;aining to cultural, visual,
transportation~ noise and biological impacts and include measures
such as those providing for replacement of trees removed during
development of the project in order to maintain the existing wooded
environment; tree planting and other landscaping along Sand Hill
Road in order to visually screen project buildings with foliage,
thus reducing the visual impact of new development on the site;
modifications of the site plan to minimize already less than
significant visual and noise impacts on Menlo Park residents across
San Fr~"lcisquito Creek and on adjoining uses; provision for bicycle
and pedestrian access through the site to avoid interference with
foot and bicycle travel and retention of existing· historical
features to the extent feasible. Despite these measures,· however,
the impact remains significant.
4.2 VISUAL OUALITY/LXGBT AND GLARE
4.2-1 The proposed projects would result in major visual
changes within the Sand Hill Road corridor for viewers traveling on
Sand Bill Road.
Mitigation measure 4. 2-1 (c) requires that final landscape
plans for the project shall provide for planting of dense evergreen
tree and understory plantings along Sand Hill Road to achieve
maximum visual screening of the site~ The mitigation calls for
complete screening of the site by foliage when all plantings reach
mat.u-;:-ity.
Mitigation measure 4. 2 -l. (d) requires that landscape trees
planted between Sand Hill Road and the proposed Health Care Center
building be 20-to 24-feet in height at the time of installation.
2
9707021ac: 0031581
• •
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(e) requires that the entrance drive
to the Health Care Center be. redesigned to narrow it to t.he
greatest extent feasible while continuing to meet functional
traffic and traffic safety design standards. Large trees (20~ to
24~feet in height at installation) shall be planted alongside the
entrance way.
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(f) requires that large trees be
planted along the Sand Hill Road facade of the eastern wing of the
Health Care Center building.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's long term adverse impacts on vie·ws from Sand Hill
Road to a less than significant level. The adopted mitigation
measures provide for visual screening of the site from Sand Hill
Road with trees and other natural vegetation. The Council also
recognizes, however, that visual screening of the site will be
incomplete until the required landscaping reaches rn.aturi ty, and
that the short-tenm impacts of the project on views from Sand Hill
Road will therefore be significant.
4.2-3 Views of pedestrians and bicyclists on the pedestrian
path/bikeway from the creek crossing to Sand Hill Road would be
greatly altered from views of open space to a developed, urbanized
environment.
Mitigation measure 4.2·~.3 provides that the final landscape
plans for the project shall include sufficient density, height, and
proximity of proposed tree plantings to the east of the pedestz:ian
path to screen project buildings from views of pedestrians and
bicyclists on the path/bikeway. Tree plantings shall be designed
to achieve canopy closure above and to the east of the pedestrian
path.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the project's impact on views from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge,
but will not reduce the impa.ct to a less than significant level ..
The required landscaping will substantially screen views of
buildings on the project site. However the required landscaping~
particularly before trees reach maturity, will not completely
eliminate views of new four story buildings or fully mitigate the
resulting change in visual character of the area. The impact
therefore remains significant~
4 .. 2-8 Visual disturbance from construction of the proposed
projects could have temporary adverse visual impacts.
Mitigation measure 4.2-8 reqt1ires that on~site staging and
storage of construction equipment and materials should be minimized
to reduce visual disturbance during construction. Equipment and
material storage that does occur on-site should be visually
screened. Graded areas should be watered regularly to minimize
fugitive dust. Construction should be staged and scheduled to
minimize the duration of disturbance in each affected viewshed.
3
97070llac 0031588
• •
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the adverse visual impact of project construction, but
will not reduce this ~ct to a less than significant level. The
adopted mitigation measure will limit the duration and visibility
of construction equipment and grading activities on the site, but
will not eliminate the significant visual impact necessarily
associated with major construction activities on the site. This
impact therefore remains significant.
4.2-9 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cuaulative
development in the Sand Bill Road Corridor, could adversely affect
the vi~ual character of the corridor for viewers traveling on Sand
Bill Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-9 requires that mitigation measures
4.2-1 (a-1) be implemented for all the Sand Hill Road Corridor
Projects, including the Stanford West Senior Housing project.
The Council has adopted or partially adopted the provisions of
mitigation measures 4.2-l(a)-(1) as they pertain to the Stanford
West Senior Housing project. The Council finds that the adoption
of these mitigation measures will lessen the project's contribution
to cumulative visual impacts from development of the Sand Hill Road
corridor for reasons previously stated in relation to each adopted
mitigation measure, but that these measures collectively will not
reduce the project's contribution to cumulative visual impacts to
a less than significant level.
The additional project-specific mitigation measures
recommended in mitigation measure 4. 2-9 have been adopted or
rejected as stated in the findings for the Stanford West
ApartiDents, Stanford Shopping Center Expansion, and Sand Hill Road
Extensi,on and Related Roadway Improvements projects. To the extent
these measures have been adopted, they collectively will reduce but
not eliminate the significant adverse cumulative visual impacts of
the Sand Hill Corridor projects. This cumulative impact therefore
remains significant.
The Council recognizes that future development, to the extent
allowed in the Sand Hill Corridor area will continue to add to·the
significant cumulative visual impacts associated with the approved
projects.
4.2-11 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumulative
development, could adversely alter views from the
pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing San Prancisquito Creek to Menlo
Park.
Mitigation measure 4.2-ll provides that the applicant shall.
provide landscape screening of the Children's Health Council
facilities from the bike path.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project's contribution to cumulative impacts on
views from the pedestrian/bicycle bridge, but will not reduce the
4
970702 lac 003 J '88
• •
project's contribution nor the cumulative impact to a less than
significant level. The required landscaping will substantially
screen views of the Children's Health Council, thereby reducing the
overall visibility of buildings, but will not eliminate the
remaining unavoidable substantial change in visual character of the
area associated with development of the Stanford West Apartments
and Stanford West Senior Housing project. The cumulative impact
will therefore remain significant.
4.2-13 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumulative
development, could generate light and glare from buildings and
roadways that could have adverse effects on nearby residents and
on-cc:-.ing drivers along Sand Bill Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-13 provides that interior and exterior
light sources associated with all of the approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects shall be shielded or directed in such a manner as
to prevent visibility of the light sources and to eliminate light
spillover beyond the perimeter of the proposed project. Specific
measures recommended in accordance with section 18.64.030 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code includ2 the following:
(a) Exterior light fixtures on the housing buildings should
be mounted no higher than 15 feet at the rear of the
buildings.
(b) Lighting of the building exterior and parking lot should
be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for
its purpose.
(c) Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated
signs, should be avoided.
{d) Timing devices should be considered for exterior and
interior lights in order to minimize light glare.at night
without jeopardizing security. ~
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the project's contribution to potential cumulative light and glare
impacts to insignificance. The adopted mitigation measure will
have the effect of eliminating substantial spillover of light. from
the project site and will therefore reduce any potential cumulative
impact to insignificance. This mitigation measure has also been
incorporated into the conditions of approval for other approved
Sand Hill Road Corridor projects and will therefore eliminate any
potential significant ~umulative effect by confining the impacts of
each project to its own location.
5
970702 lac 0031588
• •
4a3·1 t.pleaentation of the proposed projects would result in
dallaging effect• on important historic and/or prehistoric
archaeological resources.
~tigation measure 4.3-l(b) requires that prior to development
the applicant shall conduct a data recovery program on all areas in
which construction is believed to have a potential to result in
significant archaeological impacts. The program shall consist of
an initial phase of intensive subsurface archaeological testing
meeting minimum standards specified in the EIR. Significant
resources encountered shall be subject to recovery, preservation
and study as provided in mitigation measure 4.3-l(c). All work
shall b~ subject to review and monitoring by an j_ndependent
archaeologist engaged by the City~
Mitigation measure 4 .. 3 ... l(c) requires manual excavation and
recovery of archaeological resources from any areas encountered
during construction which are dete1-mined to hold important
archaeological resources and for the recovery, preservation and
study of these resources. The measure also provides for ongoing
monitoring of constro.ction activities in potentially sensitive
areas of the site and for preparation of further detailed
procedures to ensure protection and recovery of any significant
resources encountered in such areas~ The plans shall include {a}
provisions for artifact cataloging r analysis, and curation; (b)
identification and coordination with most-likely Native American
descendants concerning monitoring and reburial of Native American
remains, if any are encountered; (c) plans for preparation of
technical reports; (d) analysis and preservation of artifacts and
documentation and analysis of non-recoverable site features. All
of the foregoing shall be performed in accordance with current
scientific and professional standards.
Mitigation measure 4.3-1(d), as modified in···p. 14-9 of the
EIR, provides that any mechanical excavation for underground
utility lines in Level 1 avoidance areas shall be conducted under
the supervision of 20 archaeologist. If mechanical excavation is
determined to pose a threat to archaeological resources, excavation
will be conducted manually. Removed soil shall be screened and any
artifacts recovered will be analyzed, reported and curated as
provided in mitigation measure 4.3-l{c).
Mitigation measure 4 .3-l (e) limits the placement of paved
bicycle or pedestrian paths or light-duty roads and specifies
additional measures to ensure that no impacts will result from
placement or construction of these paths or roads in areas likely
to contain archaeological resources.
Mitigation measure 4-3 ... 1(£) provides that construction
activities involving substantial ground disturbance (greater than
12" in depth) near any known archaeological site shall be subject
to monitoring.
6
9101CliK oolt sn
• •
~tigation measure 4.3-l(g) provides that if previously
unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction,
work shall cease in the immediate area until qualified
archaeologists assess the significance of the resources and make
mitigation recommendations (e.g~, manual excavation of the
immediate area)~ if warranted~
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(h) requires the applicant and
contractors to comply with the requirements of Section 7050.S(b) of
the california Health and Safety Code if Native American burials or
other possible Native American h~an remains are located during
construction. This code section requires that a Native American
Most Likely Descendant (dete~~ned in consultation with the Native
American Heritage Con'lnission} be notified within 24 hours and
appropriate provisions ~cde for appropriate reburialT This and
related sections of the Public Resources Code a.lso provide that
remains shall be protected from further construction work or
vandalism,
Mitigation measure 4.3~l(j) requires that recent information
obtained by Stanford be consulted in the Archaeological Testing
Plan for the site. Areas beneath existing buildings have not be.en
subject to previous subsurface testing will be test following
demolition of existing buildings and prior to new construction.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the project~s impacts on archaeological resources to a
less than significant lev·el. .._1lile potentially significant
archaeological resources are believed to exist on the project site
and could be affected by development, the extent of such resources
is not presently known. The archaeological resources in same areas
are also likely to have been damaged or destroyed by past
development. The adopted mitigation measures will ensure that any
important archaeological resources encountered in areas subject to
development will be identified~ removed and preserved for further
study in accorffiu1ce with accepted scientific standards, ensuring no
loss of scientific or historical value of the resources. The
adopted measures also ensure that proper respect will be afforded
any burials and any other culturally important Native American
remnants which might be impacted by the project.
Rejected Mitigation Mgasure
The EIR also proposed an alterr~te mitigation measure 4.3-l(a)
which has not been adopted by the City. Mitigation measure
4.3-l(a) would require the Stanford West Senior Housing project to
be redesigned to avoid disturbance to all buried intact or
partially intact prehistoric or historic resources on the site.
The Council finds that mitigation measure 4.3-l(a) is
infeasible as it relates to the project because the measure would
result in other environmental impacts and/or elimination of housing
units from the project, without resulting in a countervailing net
benefit in terms of protection of archaeological resources.
Completion of studies to determine the full extent of surviving
7
970702 lac: 003 uu
• •
archaeological deposits on the site to guide project redesign would
substantially delay construction of the project.. In addition,
depending upon the extent. of surviving archaeological resources
confirmed, redesign of the project could result in loss of housing
units and/or other undesirable effects such as relocating buildings
within setback areas closer to San Francisquito Creek: visual
impacts from increased building heights or relocation, or loss of
additional trees or loss of residential units or other facilities
intended for the benefit of future senior residents of the project.
Alternate mitigation measures are available and r~ve been adopted
to reduce potential impacts on archaeological resources to a less
than significant level. The adopted mitigation measures will
ensure that any important archaeological resources encountered in
areas subject to development will be identified, removed and
preserved for further study in accordance with accepted scientific
standards, ensuring no loss of scientific or historical value of
the resources. Because alternative measures have been adopted to
avoid significant effects on archaeological resources,
implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-l{a) is not necessary to
avoid these impacts and cannot be justified in light of delays in
project implementation and potential other adverse environmental
effects discussed above.
4o3-3 Implementation of the proposed projects could result in
damaging effects on the Leland Stanford, Jr_ Stone Monument.
Mitigation measure 4.3-3(b) provides that the
monument/mausoleum site shall be marked with a plaque, and the
monument preserved and relocated on-site to an area open to public
viewing as near to the original location as possible. The
relocated monument will be incorporated in landscape plans to
preserve and enhance its historical significance.
Mitigation measure 4.3-3(c) provides that the remains of the
original mausoleum shall be subject to an archaeological data
recovery program. ·~
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the identified impact on historic resources to a less than
significant level. The adopted mitigation measures provide·for
preservation of the Leland Stanford Jr. monument near its historic
location, recording of its original location with a plaque and
recovery of any surviving artifacts or other historically
significant information associated with the present location of the
monu.'1'\ent and fo:nner mausoleum site. The Council believes that
relocation of the monument on the site will not substantially
diminish its historic value or significance.
Rejected Mitigat:i_9n.:
The EIR also identified an alternative mitigation measure
4.3-3(a), which would require redesign of the Stanford West Senior
Housing project to permit the Stone Monument to be preserved where
it is presently situated. The Council finds that this measure is
infeasible in that implementation of the measure could result in
8
970702 lac 0031S88
• •
increases in other impacts such as visual impacts from increased
building heights or relocation, relocation of buildings closer to
San Franci~quito Creek, loss of trees, or loss of residential units
or other facilities intended for the benefit of future senior
residents of the project4 As an alternative to this measure the
Council has adopted mitigation measure 4.3-3(b), which provides for
relocation and preservation of the monument near its present
location. While the EIR concludes that the location of the
monument is historically significant, the Council finds that the
historic significance of the monument will not be substantially
reduced by relocation on the site. The original historic location
of the monument will continue to be marked with a plaqueG
4.3-4 Implementation of the proposed projects eould result in
destruction of the Old Carriage Bouse, the only remaining
architectural feature from the Stanford Estate.
Mitigation measure 4. 3-4 (a), o.s modified by con.dition 2f,
requires that the Old Carriage House be fully protected and
preserved in place. The applicant shall submit for approval plans
which provide for fencing during construction and long term
protection of the Carriage House. The applicant shall provid~ a
bond or other financial security to ensure performance of this
mitigation measure.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will avoid
all potential adverse impacts to the Old Carriage House. The
adopted mitigation measure provides for full protection and long
term protection of this historic structure.
4.3-5 ~plementation of the proposed projects could result in
damaging effects on the Stanford Convalescent Home Gates.
Mitigation measure 4~3-S(b} provides that if preservation of
the stone entry gate pillars in their current location is not
feasible, the gates pillars shall be moved on, the site and
incorporated into the project's landscape plan.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the project's potential adverse impacts on the Stanford
Convalescent Home Gates to a less than significant level. ·This
measuce will preserve the gates on the site to permit continued
public recognition of the entryway and to maintain their historic
feeling and association within the project area. Since the gates
have already previously been moved from their original location,
the Council does not believe that further relocation will
significantly reduce the historic value or significance of the
gates.
Rejected Mitigation Measures
The EIR also proposed an alternate mitigation measure 4.3-S(a)
which has not been adopted by the City.. Mitigation measure
4.3-S(a) would require redesign of the entry to the Stanford West
Senior Housing Health Care Center and Ronald McDonald House to
9
970702 lac 0031 S88
• •
permit the convalescent home entry gates to be preserved where they
are presently situated.
The Council finds that this mitigation measure is infeasible
because it would disrupt the project site plan, potentially
resulting in loss of additional trees and increased visual impacts
from relocation of access ways. The gates were not part of the
original Stanford estate and have been relocated from their
original location near El Camino Real to their current location.
Wh.ile the presence of the gates is considered to be an important
reflection of the area's history, their location is not considered
to be historically significant. The alternate mitigation measure
4~3-S(b} recommended in the EIR has been adopted instead and will
provide for preservation of the pillars on the site by
incorporation into the landscape plans for the site and will avoid
any significant adverse impact without disrupting desirable
features of the proposed site plans.
4.3-6 The proposed projects, in conjunction with other
cumulative development projects in the San Francisquito Creek
drainage, could result in damage or destruction of important
prehistoric and historic cultural resources.
Mitigation measure 4~3-6 recorcunends that all planning
jurisdictions within the San Francisquito Creek drainage implement
cultural resource testing and data recovery measures, similar to
those described in mitigation measure 4.3-1 for projects involving
development of sensitive cultural resource sites.
The Council has adopted the recommended mitigation measure for
the Stanford West Senior Housing project and all other approved
Sand Hill Corridor projects. The Council finds that adoption of
the recommended project-specific measures will lessen the project's
cont.ribution to the identified cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level and will also lessen the cumulative impact of the
S~,d Hill Corridor projects collectively to a less than significant
level.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
future projects approved Dy the City. With respect to cumulative
impacts from future de,_r~lupment projects outside of the City, the
Council finds that implementation of the recommended measures is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies
and that the agencies can and should implement such measures to the
extent feasible. Because the nature and extent of potential
cumulative impact from future projects on archaeological resources
is presently speculative and unknown, and because the extent to
which other agencies can and will implement the recommended
measures is presently unknown, the Council ca~~ot determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented by such other public agencies or the extent to which
these measures, if implemented, will lessen or avoid potential
10
970702 lac 003 1 S88
• •
cumulative cultural resources impacts. The Council therefore finds
that this cumulative impact r~~ins potentially significant despite
the adoption of available mitigation measures by the City.
••• TBABSPQITA~
4 .. 4-2 Bicycle and/or pedestrian access and safety could be
affected by development of the proposed projects.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2(a) requires that the final design for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Stanford West
Apartments and Senior Housing sites shall be reviewed and approved
by the City"s Chief Transportation Official to ensure the
circulation system will function as a part of regional or
inter~city bicycle and pedestrian connections.
Mitigation measure 4.4 ... 2 (e) provides that for five years
following project constnJction, the project applicant will fund an
annual review of reported traffic accident data at the Sand Hill
Road/1-280 interchange to determine whether a significant increase
in bicycle/auto conflicts has occurred. If an increase is
documented, the applicant will. work with Caltrans, the City Df
Menlo Park and San r-.!ateo County to design and obtain funding for
safety improvements required to minimize these conflicts.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's impacts on pedestrian and bicycle travel to a less
than significant level. The adopted mitigation measures ensure
tha.t the final project design will provide for safe bicycle and
pedestrian access to, from and through the project site to local
and regional bicycle and pedestrian paths, including those being
implemented in conjunction with other elements of the Sand Hill
Corridor projects. These measures also require Stanford to work
with responsible agencies to eliminate safety problemS resulting
from increased bicycle and vehicle traffic at the s·and Hill
Road/I-280 intersection if such problems are determtned to exist in
the future.
4.4-7 Developaent of the proposed projects could degrade the
level of service of study area intersections, and contribute· to
Lncreaaed intersection delay.
The studies and analysis performed for the FEIR demonstrate
that the project, either singly or in conjunction with other
approved Sand Hill Corridor projects, will not have significant
adverse effects on levels of service at most intersections near the
project site. The FEIR concluded, however, that changes and
increases in traffic patterns resulting from the Sand Hill Road
Corridor projects collectively will result in significant adverse
changes in traffic conditions at a total of seven area
intersections, specifically:
910702 * 0031381
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue
11
• •
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
Junipero Serra Blvd-/Alpine Road/Santa Cr~z Avenue
Middlefield Road/Willow Road
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
The Stanford West Senior Housing project alone will have
significant adverse impacts on traffic levels at only four area
intersections, specifically:
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
Middlefield Road/Willow Road
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
The conditions of approval nevertheless re~Jire the applicant
to contribute to all of the following mitigation measures.
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(a) requires
the applicant to install a traffic signal or other appropriate
traffic contrc.:l device{s} at the int.e:!:"section of Arboretum
Road/Galvez Street, and pay the ful1 cost of these improvements.
This measure shall be implemented when the intersection satisfies
appropriate signal warrants as determined by the Chief
Transportation Official. In the event tha.t the City and the
applicant determine that ust: of a traffic circle or "roundabout"
will provide for the same or better LOS and safety as a traffic
signal, the traffic circle ~ay be constructed at the applicant's
expense instead of a traffic signals or other traditional traffic
control device(s).
El Camino RealLPa~ RQad: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(b)
requiras the applicant to contribute a fair share of the costs of
the following planned improvements:
Add a southbound right turn lane.
Add a westbound right turn lane.
Add a northbound right turn lane; and extend the
westbound left turn lane by 100 feet.
These measures should be implemented when the intersection
approaches LOS F, as evaluated through periodic monitoring to be
carried out by the applicant on behalf the City.
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cru.z Avenue: Mitigation measure 4 .. 4-7 (c)
requires the applicant to pay a fair share of the costs of the
following improvements to the following improvements to the Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection:
97010lllc 0031588
Widen Sand Hill Road to add second eastbound left turn
lane;
Widen Sand Hill Road to add second westbound left turn
lane;
12
• •
Modify signal phasing;
Install an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound
approach of Santa Cruz Avenue; and
Provide dual left turn lanes on both the northbound and
southbound Santa Cruz Avenue approaches~
The applicant shall also pay the costs of installing an
exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Sa.nta Cruz
Avenue and providing dual left turn lanes on both the northbound
and southbound Santa Cruz Avenue approaches~
Conditions of approval 1. c and 12 for the Sand Hill Road
Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project, and adopted by
condition of approval 2. d for this project t provide that the
applicant shall advance funds to pay the full costs of these
improvements if the City of Menlo Park and/or the County of San
Mateot with respect to any improvements withir. that jurisdiction~
enters into an agreement to reimburse the applica~t for costs in
excess of its fair share. If no reimbursement agreement is
adopted, the applicant shall pay its fair share (subject to limits
based on engineering estimates) based on traffic attributable to
the Sand Hill Corridor projects. Imple~entation of this ~~tigation
measure will not occur until approvals are obtained from the City
of Menlo Park and/or the County of San ~~teo, as applicable.
Junipero Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Av:ep.ug: ~1it igation
measure 4.4-7{d) requires the applicant to pay a fair share of the
costs of the following improvements to the Junipero Serra
Boulevard/Alpine RoadiSanta Cruz Avenue intersection mandated by
the Menlo Park General Plan or recommended in the EIR:
Widen northbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
Install an additional southbound left-turn lane.
Conditions of approval 1. c and 12 for the Sand Hill Road
Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project, as adopted by
condition of approval 2 ~ d for this project I provide that the
applicant shall advance funds to pay the full costs of these
improvements if the City of Menlo Park and/or the County of San
Mateo, as applicable, enters into an agreement to reimburse the
applicant for costs in excess of its fair share. If no
reimbursement agreement is adopted~ the applicant shall pay its
fair share (subject to limits based on reasonably engineering
estimates) based on traffic attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor
projects. Implementation of this mitigation measure will not occur
until approvals are obtained from the City of Menlo Park and/or the
County of San Mateo, as applicable.
Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(e),
identifies a number of improvements which would be necessary to
13
97070llac 003 U88
---------------------------• •
mitigate cumulative traffic impacts at this intersection, including
the following~
Add a second southbound left turning lane.
Restripe eastbound approach.
Modify signal phasing, including a leading left turn
phase in the signal phasing for the north and south
directions ..
The timing of these improvements will be determined by the
City of Menlo Park, through periodic monitoring and/or through
subsequent envirorunental impact analysis and documentation.
Condition 2.e of the conditions of approval partially
in~lements this mitigation measure by requiring that the applicant
sha.ll either make signal timing improvements sufficient to return
traffic levels of service at this intersection to level of service
D, or to contribute its fair share of the costs to construct the
recommended intersection improvements. This obligation would not
be triggered until current level of service falls to E or worse;.
£and Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Junipero Serra
Blv4~L~lgine Road: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(h) provides that the
applicant shall conduct an operational analysis of the Sand Hill
Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard
intersections to identify the appropriate combination of roadway
and traffic signal improvements necessary to improve operation to
LOS D during peak hours, if feasible.
The EIR also recommends that the following mitigation measures
be irr~lemented to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts at specified
intersections within the City of Menlo Park, but does not provide
for direct participation by the applicant in implement·ation of
these mitigation measures.
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(£)
recommends that the following improvements to the El Camino
Real/Ravenswood Avenue intersection be completed as prescribed in
the City of Menlo Park's general plan:
Widen northbound approach to add third northbound through
lane.
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane.
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue: Mitigation
measure 4.4-7(g) recommends that the following improvements to the
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue intersection be
14
970702 lac 0031588
• •
completed as prescribed in the City of Menlo Park's general plan:
Restripe northbound approach to add third northbound
through lane~
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane~
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
Final design shall include provisions for bicycle
traffic.
In addition, the EIR recommends that signal phasing at this
intersection be modified to include split phasing in the east/west
direction and a leading left turn phase in the north/south
direction.
The Council finds that these adopted mitigation measures, if
implemented, will lessen the project's impacts on traffic at the
four significantly affected intersections to a less than
significant level, and w·ill also substantially lessen the impact of
the project's contribution to cumulative traffic at other
intersections significantly affected by the Sand Hill Corridor
projects collectively. Mitigation measures 4.4-7(a)-(e), as
modified by conditions of approval, require the applicant to pay
all or a fair share of the costs of physical in~rovements necessary
to enable each of the intersections, as noted, to serve anticipated
cumulative traffic de~ands at acceptable levels of service.
Mit.igation measure 4. 4-7 (h) also provides for identification of
appropriate additional intersection improvements should the City of
Menlo Park elect to achieve a higher level of service and the Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Alpine Road/Junipero ·serra
Boulevard intersections. · ·
The Council recognizes that final authority to approve and
implement the identified mitigation measures at three of the four
intersections significantly affected by the project is vested in
public agencies other than the City, specifically the County of
Santa Clara (mitigation measure 4.4-?(a), Arboretum Road/Galvez
Street}; the City of Menlo Park (mitigation measures 4.4-?(c), Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and 4.4-7(e), Middlefield Avenue/Willow
Road); and County of San Mateo (mitigation measure 4.4-?{c), Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue) . Responsibility and authority for
implementing the recommended mitigation measures at the additional
intersections cumulatively impacted by the project is also vested
in other public agencies, specifically the City of Menlo Park
(mitigation measures 4.4-7(f), El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue,
and 4.4-?(g), El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue) and
4.4-7{d), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue).
The Council finds that the identified mitigation measures can and
should be approved and implemented by these agencies. However, the
Council also recognizes that in the event that one or more of the
listed mitigation measures are not approved and implemented by the
15
970102 lac 0031 SIS
• •
appropriate responsible agency, the project will result in
significant adverse impacts on the Arboretum Road/Galvez Street,
Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road and/or Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz
Avenue intersections, and could contribute to significant impacts
at other intersections cumulatively affected by the Sand Hill
Corridor projects~ Because it cannot presently be deter.mined if or
when the appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented by the
respective responsible agencies, these impacts are considered by
the Council to be potentially significant.
4. 4-8 Construction activities could lead to both temporary
disruption of transportation system operation, as well as to
per.aanent damage to elements of the system such as pavement and
bridges.
Mitigation measure 4.4-8(a} req~ires the applicant to provide
adequate off street parking for all construction~related vehicles
throughout the construction period. If adeq~ate parking cannot be
provided on the constru.ction sites. a satellite parking area shall
be designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer
construction workers to the job sites.
Mitigation meas"'..lre 4.,4-S{b) provides that constn1ction
activities related to che project are prohibited from substantially
limiting pedestrian access {e.g, by blocking pedestrian routes),
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto and/or Caltrans.
Any approval shall require submittal and approval of specific
constt~ction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to
a less-than··significant level.
Mitigation ~~asure 4-4.8(c) provides that the applicant shall
be prohibited from limiting bicycle access (e.g. by blocking or
restricting existing routes) while constrJcting the project,
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto or Caltrans
and/or the City of Menlo Park (depending upon the jurisdiction of
the requested action) . Any approval will requir~ submittal and
approval of specific construction management plans to mitigate the
specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S{d) provides that the applicant shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
material deliveries from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 4 p.m. to 6
p.m. on weekdays.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(e) provides that the applicant shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(f) requ~res that all
construction-related equipment and materials shall be delivered and
removed on truck routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto and
Menlo Park~ Heavy construction vehicles shall be prohibited from
accessing the sites from other routes.
1.6
970702 be 00llS81
~~~~~~~~-----------------------~-~----------• •
Mitigation measure 4.4-8(g) requires the applicant to repair
any structural damage to public roadways, returning any damaged
sections to original structural condition. The effectiveness of
this measure shall be ~Jaranteed by requiring surveys of road
conditions before and after constPJction.
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(h) prohibits the applicant from
limiting access to public transit te.g~ by relocating or
restricting access to bus stops or transfer facilities), and from
limiting movement of public transit vehicles, without prior
approval from the Santa Clara Transit Agency or other appropriate
jurisdiction. Any approval will require submittal of specific
construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to
a less·than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4.4-8(!} f~Ovides that in lieu of
mitigation measures 4.4-B(a) through \h), the project applicant may
prepare detailed construction impact mitigation plans for approval
by the City of Palo A.lto Chief Transporr:::.1or~ Official and City of
Menlo Park Transportatio:1 Manager prior to commencing any
construction activities with pote~tial transportation impacts in
their respective jurisdictions. The plan must address all aspeGtS
of construction traffic rnanagement necessa1:-y to eliminate or reduce
transportation impacts to acceptable levels.
The Council finds that adootion of these measures will lessen
the project's potential construction phase traffic and
transportation impacts tc a less than significant level. These
measures provide for comprehensive planning foj.~ construction
traffic and establish standards, criteria and h~lementing measures
which will ensure that significant interference with vehiclet
bicycle, pedestrian and emergency vehicle access is avoided during
all phases of construction.
4.5 AIR QUALITY
4.5-1 The PM,0 generated during the construction of the proposed
projects could be har.m£ul to nearby pollutant-sensitive land uses.
Mitigation measure 4.5-1 req~1ires the applicant to implement
a construction pr~se progr&~ which includes the following measures
to reduce generation of particulate matter on the project site
during construction:
970702lac0031S88
Water all active construction areas at least twice a day,
or as needed to prevent visible dust plumes from blowing
off-site.
Use tarpaulins or other effective covers for on-site
storage piles and for haul trucks on public streets.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic)
soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads~ parking
areas, and staging areas during construction.
17
• •
Sweep all paved access routes, parking areas, and staging
areas daily (preferably with water sweepers} .
Sweep streets daily {preferably with water sweepers) if
visible amounts of soil material is carried onto public
streets.
If the working area of any construction site exceeds four
acres at any one time, implement the following additional measures:
Apply (non.-toxic)
construction areas.
soil stabilizers to inactive
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic}
soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
Limit construction site vehicle speed to 15 mph on
unpaved areas.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.
If the working area of any construction site is located near
any sensitive receptors, implement the following measure in
addition to those listed above:
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed
25 mph.
The last mitigation would be applicable to the Sand Hill Road
widening where it passes the 14 single family homes in Menlo Park
between Santa Cruz Avenue and Oak Avenue.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified potential adverse construction phase L~act to a
less than significant level. Implementation of twice daily
watering has been shown to reduce construction site P~~o emissions
by at least 50 percent. This practice, in conjunction with the
other listed measures, will reduce P~0 emissions during
construction to less than the BAAQMD threshold of significance of
80 lbs/day for all anticipated construction activity.
4.5-2 ROG, NOx, and P~0 emissions generated by motor vehicles
and residential stationary sources associated with the proposed
projects would exceed the 80 lbs/day threshold and could hinder
regional and local attainment of State ozone and PK,0 standards.
Mitigation measure 4.5-2 (a) requires the City to implement
mitigation measure 4.4-2(a), which provides that final design for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Stanford West
Apartments and Senior Housing sites shall be reviewed to ensure the
circulatio1~ system will function as a part of regional or
inter-city bicycle ctnd. pedestrian connections, thereby promoting
increased use of bicycles or pedestrian travel by area residents.
18
970702 lac 0031588
• •
The EIR concludes that air pollution emissions from the project,
resulting primarily from increased project-related vehicle traffic
~-would be approximately 31 lbs/day for reactive organic compounds
(ROG), 30 lbs/day for nitrogen oxides (NOx} and 29 lbs/day of ~0 particulates, all below the threshold of significance recognized by
the BAAQMD and utilized in the EIR. Due to continuing changes in
automotive technology, it is further expected that emissions would
drop to 15 lbs/day of ROG, 29 lbs/day of NOx and 29 lbs/day of P~0 by the year 2010. The project individually therefore will not have
a significant adverse effect on air quality.
The EIR also concluded, however, that the project would contribute
to significant cumulative air quality impacts from the Sand Hill
Road Corridor projects as a whole. The Council finds that this
cumulative air quality impact is significant.
4.5-2 ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions generated by motor vehicles
and residential stationary sources associated with the proposed
projects would exceed the 80 lbs/day threshold and could hinder
regional and local attainment of State ozone and PM10 standards.
The EIR concludes that air pollution emissions from t.he
project--almost entirely from related vehicle traffic--would be
approximately 55 lbs/day for reactive organic compounds (ROG), 65
lbs/day for nitrogen oxides NO~ and 51 lbs/day of P~0 particulates,
all below the threshold of s1gnificance recognized by the BAAQMD
and utilized in the EIR. Due to continuing changes in automotive
technology, it is further expected that emissions would drop to 26
lbs/day of NOx and rerr.ain at 51 lbs/day of PM10 by the year 2010.
The project, therefore, will not individually have a sig11ificant
adverse effect on air quality.
The EIR also concluded, however, that the project would
contribute to significant total air quality impacts from the Sand
Hill corridor projects as a whole.
Mitigation measure 4. 5-2 (a) requires the City to implement
mitigation measure 4.4-2(a), which provides that final design for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Stanford West
Apartments and Senior Housing sites shall be reviewed to ensure .the
circulation system will function as a part of regional or inter-
city bicycle and pedestrian connections, thereby promoting
increased use of bicycles or pedestrian travel by area residents.
The Council finds that this measure will lessen project
related air pollution impacts somewhat, but will not reduce the
cumulative impact of the Sand Hill corridor projects to less than
significant levels. The cumulative air quality impacts of the Sand
Hill corridor projects will, therefore, be significant.
19
9707021K0031S88
• •
4. 5·4 CUmulative daily traffic along major roadways in the
project and study areas would emit more NO., and P!fo with the
implementation of the Sand Bill Road Projects, but emissions of ROG
would decrease.
The EIR found that the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects would
collectively contribute to significant cumulative increases of
emissions of NOx and P~110 in the project area. The project's
contribution to these cumulative impacts has been discussed in
relation to nmpact 4.5-2. Cumulative traffic-related air pollution
emissions are regulated through means beyond the City's
jurisdiction and control. Individual vehicle emissions and
automotive fuels are subject to regulation only by state or federal
goverr~nt. Regional traffic levels are also heavily influenced by
past and future planning and land use decisions over which the City
has no control. The Council therefore finds that no additional
feasible mitigation measures are presently available to the City to
mitigate the cumulative impact due to increases in regional
traffic, and legal authority and responsibility for feasible
mitigation measures, if anyi is vested in other public agencies.
This C 1..L.~ulative impact is therefore significant.
4.6 NOISE
4.6 ... 1 The noise generated during the construction of the
proposed projects could be disruptive to nearby noise-sensitive
land uses ..
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(a} provides that construction
activities will be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and if weekend work is necessary, to the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and to the hours of
10:00 aem. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mitigation measure 4. 6 -l (b) provides that con·struction
equipment shall be outfitted and maintained with ·noise reduction
devices {i.e., mufflers, enclosures for stationary equipment, etc.)
to obtain at least an average 10 dBA reduction shown feasible in
Table 4.6-5.
Mitigation measure 4. 6-1 {c) provides that stationary noise
sources (e.g., compressors~ concrete mixers, etc.) shall be located
on portions of the sites furthest away from residential and other
noise-sensitive areas, and that acoustic shielding shall be used
with such equipment.
The Council fin1s that adoption of these measures will
substantially lessen construction phase noise impacts on
surrounding residents, but will not reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels. The measures will reduce noise generated
by construction activities and will eliminate construction noise
during normal sleeping hours. However, construction noise impacts
will remain significant due to the levels of noise inherently
generated by large scale construction activity and heavy equipment.
20
970702 lac; 0031588
• •
4.6 ... 3 Traffic: generated by the proposed projects and other
euaulative developments and the traffic accommodated by the
pr~se4 roadway t.proveaenta WQuld impact existing and proposed
residential and other Bensitive land uses adjacent to roadways in
the project and study areas.
~tigation measure 4.6-3(a) requires that project residential
units facing Sand Hill Road contain sufficient acoustic insulation
to meet State Title 24 indoor noise standards.
The Council finds that the adopted mitigation measure will
eliminate any potential significant noise impacts on project
residents by requiring noise protection to be built into
residential units to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable
levels. The EIR concluded that although some residences in the
area of the Sand Hill Corridor projects would experience
significant ctl.m' ... llative noise impact from eJr..-pected traffic increases
on area roadways, the contribution of the Stanford West Senior
Housing project to these curnulative noise impacts would be less
than significant.
The EIR also concluded that although the project would not
directly ca'.lse significant noise impacts, traffic from the project
would contribute to cumulative noise impacts on some residences
along Sand Hill Road. The conditions of approval for the project,
therefore incorporate the following mitigation measures to assist
in mitigating potential cumulative traffic-related noise impacts.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 6-3 (b) requ.i res the applicant to
construct a landscaped buffer strip with at least a 3-foot-high
berm along Sand Hill Road between Stanford Avenue and Oak Avenue in
conjunction with implementation of the Sand Hill Road widening and
realignment between Santa Cruz and Oak Avenues.
Mitigation measure 4.6-3(c) requires the applicant to
construct a soundwall 6 feet high or higher between Santa Cruz
Avenue and Stanford Avenue in conjunction with implementation of
the Sand Hill Road widening to reduce noise from traffic increases
at the nearby intersection.
Mitigation measure 4,.6-3(d), as modified by Condition 2.g of
the project conditions of approval, requires the applicant to
monitor noise increases in residences in the designated areas along
Sand Hill Road where the Sand Hi.ll Road Corridor projects may be
responsible for more than 50% of potential increases in
traffic-related noise. If noise increases are detected, the
applic~nt shall be responsible for the costs of measures such as
additional insulation, double-glazed windows, or individual
soundwalls as determined necessary by acoustic study to return
interior noise levels in these residences to pre-project levels or
to 45 d.Ba~ Residents may also contribute any further funds
necessary to further reduce interior noise levels to acceptable
levels.
21
970702 be 0031 su
• •
The Council finds that these mitigation measures, if
implemented, will substantially lessen significant cumulative
traffic-related noise impacts along the Sand Hill Road corridor
although these measures will not. necessa.rily reduce cumulative
noise ~cts to a less than significant level for every residence
affected by the project. Mitigation measure 4.6-3(d) provides for
a fair share contribution by the applicant to the costs of
physically upgrading affected residences with noise mitigation
measures. Mitigation measures 4.6-3(b) and 4~6-3{c) provide for
construction of physical barriers to reduce noise to acceptable
levels at protected residences. The adopted mitigation measure
4. 3-6 (d) will impose responsibility for necessary monitoring of
actual noise increases on the applicant and also imposes
responsibility on the applicant to pay a share of actual mitigation
costs in proportion to the applicant's responsibility for these
impacts where the Sand Hill Corridor projects are the predominant
cause of cumulative traffic-related noise impacts. The Council
does not believe that the applicant can or eq:.;it.ably should be held
responsible for more than a fair share of the costs of mitigating
these potential cumulative noise impacts. Revisions made by the
City to mitigation measure 4.3-6(d) are intended to strengthen the
measure by fixing responsibility fer noise monitoring on t:he
applicant, and to also amend the measure to provide that the
applicant shall be financially responsible only for a fair share of
the costs 0f implementing the mi tigat.ion measure. The Council
recognizes that mitigation measure 4.6-3(d), as adopted, will not
result in lessening of cu..rnulative noise impacts a.t. locations at
which less than 50% of the cumulative traffic-related noise
increase is attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor projects. The
Council also recognizes that since imple..'l\entation of mitigation
measure 4.6-3(d) also requires the cooperation of affected
homeowners, the physical improvements necessary to reduce noise
levels at some affected residences to acceptable levels may not be
constructed by choice of the owner. The Council therefore
recognizes that notwithstanding adoption of the identified
mitigation measures, cumulative traffic-related noise impacts may
remain significant for some residences affected by the projects.
With respect to mitigation measures 4.6-3(b} and 4.6-3(c),
which will mitigate noise impacts on certain residences in Menlo
Park, the Council further recognizes that although the conditions
of approval require the applicant to accept responsibility for
implementation of these mitigation measures, approval for
implementation of these measures must be obtained from the City of
Menlo Park. The Council finds that implementation of these
mitigation measures can and should be 3pproved by the City of Menlo
Park. The Council also recognizes, however, that in the event that
approval for implementation of these measures is not obtained from
Menlo Park, affected residences in Menlo Park would experience
significant cumulative traffic-related noise impacts due to
increased cumulative traffic on Sand Hill Road.
22
970702 lac 0031 S88
..... ---------------------~----• •
4.7 BIOLOGICAL RISQORCBQ
4.7--1 1mplementation of the proposed projects would result in
loss of trees and associated wildlife habitat~
Mitigation measure 4.7-l(a) requires that native trees removed
for the projects shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 on a per acre
basis by the same species from locally collected stock, and
provides for additional replanting if survival rates fall below 80
percent.
Mitigation measure 4.7-1(b) re<~ires that non-native landscape
trees removed for the projects be replaced on a two-to-one basis.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-1 (c) provides that the City shall
contract with an independent arborist to (a) review plans to
provide for maximum retention of trees and necessary additional
tree protection measures; b} monitor project construction ; and c)
recommend changes in the tree removal plan as necessary during
construction.
Mitigation measure 4.7-l{e) requires that all trees adjacent
to project. construction areas which are not removed will be avoided
and protected according to specified procedures incorporated into
all construction and/or demolition contracts.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's long and intermediate term impacts on trees and
related wildlife habitat to less than significant levels, and will
substantially lessen but will not avoid significant adverse short
term impacts (0-10 years) to trees and related wildlife habitat
within the City's jurisdiction. These measures provide for
protection of as many trees as possible during project construction
and replacement of all trees removed as a result of the project at
a greater than 1-1 ratio. These m2tigation measures will therefore
eventually result in replacement of all trees and related habitat
of equal or greater value. However, because it will take a number
of years before replacement trees reach a level of maturity similar
to those being removed, there will be a significant short-term and
intermediate term decline in quality of trees and related habitat
value at the project site.
4.7-2 Construction of the proposed projects would result in
tree removals that could directly destroy nests, eggs and Lamature
birds, and would remove future nesting habitat for birds, including
sensitive species such as raptors and migrating songbirds.
Mitigation measure 4.7-2{a) provides that in order to avoid
the nesting season of raptors and sensitive songbirds, tree
removals shall not take place between February 15 and June 30,
unless otherwise determined by CDFG on a case-by-case basis.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-2 {b) provides that if tree removal
between January 1 and February 15 is required, a pre-construction
survey shall be conducted to identify the presence, or lack
23
970702 lac 0031588
• •
thereof, of nests of raptors. If nests are identified, CDFG shall
be contacted and appropriate protocols for nest relocation shall be
implemented. If relocation of occupied, viable nests is not
feasible, construction shall be delayed and the tree left
undisturbed until completion of nesting activity.
Mitigation measure 4.7-2(c} requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-l(a)-{f) and 4.7-4{a)-(c) (tree replacement
and riparian habitat replacement), discussed above.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's impacts on nesting birds to a less than significant
level. These measures will avoid any direct destruction of nests
and provide for eventual replacement or enhancement of all nesting
habitat lost. While there will be a short term loss of nesting
habitat for all bird species and short and intermediate term loss
of nesting habitat for raptors, there are sufficient alternate
nesting sites in the area that this impact will not ha"l{"e any
significant adverse effect on overall nesting opportunities or on
bird populations.
4.7-5 Construction-related noise and human activity for the
proposed projects could create impacts to native wildlife species.
Mitigation measure 4.7-5 prohibits construction activities
within 50-feet of riparian habitats along San Francisquito Creek
during the nesting season (February 15 -June 30), unless otherwise
determined on a case-by-case basis by the CDFG.
The Council finds that adoption of this'mitigation measure
will lessen the project's potential noise and disturbance impacts
on wildlife to a less than significant level. The adopted
mitigation measure will ensure that construction activity does not
disrupt mating or nesting activities of birds in this area. While
some temporary disruption of activities of other speci2s may occur
during the allowed construction period, this temporary disturbance
will not be sufficient to have any significant or long-tenn
effects, such as loss of feeding areas or mating opportunities, on
species or individuals within the area.
4.7-8 Ongoing operation of the proposed projects could
adversely affect aquatic life, including sensitive animal species,
in San Prancisquito Creek, by increasing runoff and non-point
source urban pollutant loads.
Mitigation measure 4.7-S(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l{a)-(c), discussed below.
Mitigation measure 4.7-S(b) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-4(a) and (b), discussed below.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the identified potential impact on aquatic life in San Francisquito
Creek to a less than significant level. The EIR concluded that the
project, in conjunction with other Sand Hill Road Corridor
24
970702 Lac003l588
• •
projects, could result in increased runoff of sediments and
contaminants into San Francisquito Creek due to increased extent of
paved surfaces, landscaping and ground disturbances associated with
the projects. The adopted mitigation measures require preparation
and implementation of construction phase and post-construction
storm water runoff management plans which will incorporate
recognized best management practices to minimize siltation and
runoff of contaminants from the project areas. These measures will
reduce runoff of sediment or contaminants to levels which will not
cause any detectable change in net water quality in San
Francisquito Creek.
4.,-9 Operation of the p.~posed projects would increase human
&Ct!eas resulting in direct impacts to sensitive animal species and
disturbance and trampling damage to sensitive riparian habitat
adjacent to San Prancisquito Creek and to the Creek channel.
rtti tigation measure 4. 7 ·· 9 (a) requires that existing trails
providing access to the riparian habitats along San Francisquito
Creek be obliterated by dense barrier plantings of native riparian
shrubs. A new trail will be designed for the length of the San
Francisquito riparian corridor in the project area, located outside
of riparian habitats and the drip lines of existing trees.
Appropriate measures will be utilized to encourage exclusive use of
this trail. Educational interpretive signs and displays shall be
posted along this trail. View points shall be established in areas
adjacent to the Creek where their siting will cause minimal damage
to existing riparian vegetation. Direct public access to the Creek
bank and channel shall not: be permitted except over existing
crossings and for access to these carefully sited view points.
Mitigation measure 4.7-9(b) requires the project to be
redesigned so that no new development occurs within the 100-foot
setback from the top of bank based on a 2:1 slope from the toe of
the San Francisquito Creek channel. · ·
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the potential impacts of increased human intrusion of
the San Francisquito Creek riparian area to a less than significant
level. Due to the age of project residents, incidents of direct
intrusion into San Francisquito Creek and its banks by residents
are expected to be low to non-existent. While the project ~ill
also draw employees and visitors, including children, to the site
and the project also provides for continued public access on trails
close to San Francisquito Creek, mitigation measure 4.7-9(a)
provides for substantial ·preventive measures to minimize direct
human intrusion and resulting impacts to the riparian zone, and for
restoration of existing damage, thus potentially resulting in a net
beneficial impact to the riparian corridor. Mitigation measure
4.7-9(b) requires that a 100 foot buffer zon~ be maintained between
the Creek and new development; the 100 foot buffer zone represents
a buffer width generally accepted for biological mitigation
purposes. This mitigation measure has been implemented through
changes, including relocation of the pool and parking spaces
25
9'10102 lac 0031518
• •
formerly located within the 100 foot buffer, incorporated into the
project by the applicant prior to Council approval.
4.7·10 ~1-..ntation of the proposed projects, in conjunction
with other propoeed projects in the area would result in
increaeDtal lo•• of trees and associated wildlife habitat.
Mitigation measure 4.7-lO(a) recru.ires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-l{a, b, c, and e), discussed above, for all
Sand Hill Corridor projects.
Mitigation measure 4.7-lO(c) recommends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project areal implement their respective tree
protection and preservation ordinances. For those jurisdictions
without such an ordinance, measures similar to those presented in
mitigation measure 4.7-l should be implemented on a
project·by~project basis.
The Council has adopted the recom.rnended mit iga.tion measures
for the Stanford West Senior Housing project and other approved
Sand Hill Corridor projects. The Council finds that adoption of
the recommended project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the cumulative loss of trees and associated
wildlife habitat to a less than significant level. Adoption and
implementation of these measures in conjunction with the Stanford
West Apartments and Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway
Improvements projects will also reduce the combined cumulative
impact of these projects to a less than significant level~ These
measures generall.y provide for full replacement of trees lost due
to implementation of the project, thus eliminating any significant
cumulative i~pact.
Adoption of equivalent mitigation measures for future
development projects reviewed by the City is beyond the scope of
approvals granted for the project~ The Council finds, ··however,
that City decisionmakers can and should adopt such measures in
conjunction with any future projects which may result in cumulative
loss of trees and associated wildlife habitat within the City.
With respect to future implementation of the reconnnended
measures by other jurisdictions in the area, the Council finds· that
implementation is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the
identified other agencies and that such measures can and should be
adopted by such agencies. However, because the nature and extent
of potential cumulative impacts from future development in the area
are presently speculative and unknown, and the extent to which the
recommended mitigation measures will be implemented by all
responsible jurisdictions is also presently unknown and is beyond
the control of the City, the Council cannot determine at this time
the extent to which the recommended measures will lessen or avoid
the potential cumulative impact, and therefore finds that the
cumulative impact remains potentially significant.
26
91010llac ooJ 1 sa
• •
4.7·11 Conetruction of the propo•ed project•, io conjunction
with other project• in the project ar .. , would cwaulatively result
in tree reaovals that coulcl directly destroy neata. egga and
illaature birds, and would 1WIOV'e future nesting habitat for birct..
including sensitive species •uch •• raptora and Bdgrating
songbirds.
Mitigation measure 4.7-ll(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-2(a-c)f discussed above, for the Sand Hill
Corridor development projects.
Mitigation measure 4.7-ll(b) recommends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project area implement measures similar to
those presented in mitigation measure 4~7-2 on a project-by-project
basis.
The conditions of approval for the Stanford West Senior
Housing project incorporate the applicable project-specific
mitigation measures recom.rnended in mitigation measure 4.7-ll(a).
The Council has also adopted the ::-ecommeDded project-specific
mitigation measures as conditions of approval fer the Stanford West
Apartments and Sand Hill Road Extt?nsion and Related Roadway
Improvements projects. The Cour:cil finds that adoption of the
recommended project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the identified cut"Tlulati~ .. re impacts to a less than
significant level. Adoption of these mitigation measures in
conjunction with other approved projects will also reduce the
combined cumulative impact. of the prcjects to a less than
significant level. These measures generally provide for avoidance
of tree-cutting which may directly impact nesting activities and
provide for full replacement of trees lost due t.o implementation of
the project, thus el indna t ing any significant c\.L"nulat i ve impact.
Adoption of the recommended mitigatio~ measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
future projects approved by the City. With respect to cumulative
impacts from future development projects outside of the City1 the
Council finds that implementation of the recommended measures is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies
and that these agencies can and should implement such measures to
the extent feasible. Because the nature and extent o.f the
potential cumulative impact from future projects is presently
entirely speculative and unknown, and because the extent to which
other agencies can and will implement the recommended mitigation
measures is presently unknown, the Council cruL~ot determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen or avoid potential cumulative visual impacts. The
Council therefore finds that this cumulative impact remains
potentially significant despite the adoption of available
mitigation measures by the City.
27
970702 lac: 0031588
• •
4.7-15 Ongoing operation of the proposed projects, ill
conjunction with similar projects within the aaae waterahed, could
cau•• cumulative adverse affects on aquatic life, ~elud±Dg
sen•itive animal species, in San Prancisquito Creek, by increaaillg
runoff and non-point source urban pollutant load.e.
Mitigation measure 4.7-15
mitigation measures 4.9-7{a)-(c)
projects.
requires
for all
implementation of
Sand Hill Corridor
The conditions of approval for the Stanford West Senior
Housing project incorporate each of the applicable recoumended
project-specific mitigation measures. The Council has also adopted
the recommended project-specific mitigation measures as conditions
of approval for the other Sand Hill Corridor projects approved
concurrently with the project. The Council finds that adoption of
these recommended project-specific measures will lessen the
project's contribution to the identified cumulative impact to a
less than significant level. Adoption and implementation of these
mitigation measures in conjunction with the other Sand Hill
Corridor projects will also reduce the combined curnulati ·ve impact
of these projects to a less than significant level. The adopted
project-specific measures generally provide for preparation a.nd
compliance wit:n detailed Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plans
which will include spe-cific measures to prevent excessive sediment or pollution runoff which might result in significant adverse
effects on aquatic life or habitat values in San Francisquito
Creek.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures or equivalent
measures for future development projects within the City is beyond
the scope of approvals granted for the project; however, the
Council finds that such measures can and should be adopted in
conjunction with any future projects approved by the City. With
respect to cumulative impacts from future development projects
outside of the City, the Council finds that implementation cf the
reconunended measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility
of other public agencies and that the agencies can and should
implement such measures to the extent feasible. Because the nature
and extent of the potential cumulative impact from future projects
is presently speculative and unknown, and because the extent to
which other agencies can and will implement the recommended
mitigation measures is presently unknown, the Council cannot
determine at this time the extent to which the recommended measures
will be implemented or the extent to which these measures, if
implemented, will lessen or avoid potential cumulative impact
resulting from increased runoff of sediment and pollutants into San
Francisquito Creek. The Council therefore finds that this
cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite the
adoption of available mitigation measures by the City.
28
970702 lac 0031 S88
• •
4.7·16 Operation of the proposed projects, in conjunction with
atailar projects in or adjacent to the riparian corridor of San
Pranciaquito Creek or ita tributaries, would increase human access,
cuaulatively resulting in direct impacts to sensitive animal
8,PeCiea and disturbance and trampling damage to sensitive ripa~ian
habitat.
Mitigation measure 4.7-16(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4. 7-9 (a) and (b) , discussed above for the
Stanford West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects.
Mitigation measure 4. 7·16 (b) recommends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project area implement measures similar to
those presented in mitigation measure 4.7-9 on a project-by-project
basis.
The Council has adopted each of the project-specific
mitigation measures referenced in mitigation measures 4.7-lG(a) and
4. 7-16 (b), in the conditions of approval for the Stanford West
Apartments project and Stanford West Senior Housing project. The
Council finds that adoption of the reco~mended project-specific
measures will lessen the projects' contribution to potential
cUIT~lative impact on the San Francisquito Creek riparian corridor
to a less than significant level. Adoption of the recow.m.ended
mitigation measures with respect to future development projects
within the City is beyond the scope of approvals granted for the
projecti however, the Council finds that such measures can and
should be adopted in conjunction with any future projects within
the City located near riparian habitat areas.
With respect to future development projects located outside of
the City, the Council finds that implementation of the recommended
measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other
public agencies and that the agencies can and should implement such
measures to the extent feasible. Because the nature and extent of
potential c~~ulative impacts from future development are presently
speculative and unknown, and because the extent to which other
agencies can and will implement the recommended measures is
presently unknown, the Council cannot determine at this time the
extent to whi.ch the recommended measures will be implemented or·the
extent to which these measures, if implemented, will lessen or
avoid potential cumulative effects. The Council therefore finds
that this cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite
the adoption of available mitigation measures by the Council.
4.8 GEOLOGY. SOILS AND SEISMICITY
4 .. 8-1 Expansive or weak soils could damage foundations by
providing inadequate support.
Mitigation measure 4.8-l(a) requires that site specific soil
suitability analysis be conducted and soil stabilization procedures
and foundation design criteria be adopted in accordance with
engineering criteria where the existence of expansive and
compressible soil conditions is known or suspected.
29
970702 lac 0031.588
• •
Mitigation measure 4. 8-1 (b) requires participation by the
project's registered soil engineer as deemed necessary to oversee,
verify, and report on soil engineering procedures and results.
The EIR concludes that this impact is potentially, but not
necessarily, significant, based on actual conditions encountered at
the site. The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation
measures will lessen impacts related to potentially expansive or
weak soils to a less than significant level. These measures
provide for implementation of standard engineering procedures and
criteria which will ensure construction of safe buildings and
foundations.
4.8-2 The Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects area is
•uhjeet to very strong seismically induced groundshaking which
could threaten life and damage property.
~~tigation measure 4.8-2(a) requires documented site-specific
seism.ic-restraint criteria to be incorporated in the design of
foundations and structures of the project which meet the minimum
seismic-resistant design standards of CUBC Seismic Zone 4.
Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design
criteria will be incorporated in the project where recommended by
qualified experts. Roads, foundations and underground utilities in
fill or alluvium shall be designed to accommodate settlement or
compaction produced by seismic forces.
rw1it.igation measure 4,.8-2 (b) requires on-site participation by
the project 1 s registered geological or geotechnical engineering
consultant, as deemed appropriate, to oversee, verify, and report
on seismic-restraint procedures and results.
Mitigation measure 4. 8-2 (c) requires that an . engineering
geologist be contracted for third party review of all geologic,
soils and engineering reports prepared for the proposed projects.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the impact of exposure to seismic events to a less than significant
level. These measures implement standard engineering procedures
and criteria for preventing major building failures and resultring
injury or loss of life from any seismic event reasonably
anticipated to occur in the project area.
4.8-4 Implementation of any combination of the projects, in
conjunction with cumulative development within San Mateo and Santa
Clara counties and the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, would
increase the number of people and structures subject to strong
seismic groundshaking and the subsequent risk of injury, loss of
life and property damage.
Mitigation measure 4.8-4(a) recommends that documented
site-specific seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated in the
design of foundations and structures in the projects area,
including the following (1) minimum seismic-resistant design
standards shall conform to the CUBC Seismic Zone 4 Standards; (2)
30
97070llac 003151.8
... ------------------------------·------------~-------• •
additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design
criteria shall be incorporated as necessary, based on the
site-specific engineering recotrrnendations; (3) site preparation
shall be supervised by geological or geotechnical consultants; (4)
"as built• maps and a report shall be filed with the City, showing
details of the site geology, the location and type of
seismic-restraint facilities, and documenting satisfactory seismic
performance for buildings, roads, foundations and underground
utilities.
Mitigation measure 4.8 .. 4(b) recommends requiring on-site
oversight, verification and reporting by registered geological or
geotechnical engineering consultants where deemed appropriate by
the City's Chief Building Official.
The conditions of approval for the Stanford West Senior
Housing project and for each of the other Sand Hill Corridor
projects approved by the Council incorporate measures equivalent to
the project-sp-ecific mitigation measures r-ecom..-rnended in mitigation
measure 4. 8-4 (a I . The Council finds that adoption of these
project-specific measures will lessen the project's contribution to
the identified cumulati~-.re irn:..Jacc to a less than significant level,
and will also lessen the cornbined cumulative impact of the Sand
Hill Corrid<;.r projects to a less than significant level. The
adopted project-specific measures generally provide for
incorporation of adequate seismic safety measures into all new
constrJction as provided by mitigation measures 4.8-2(a)-{c}.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction '.Vith
a...l"ly future projects approved by the City. With respect to
cunrulative i.mpa.cts from future development outside of the City, the
Council finds that implementation of the reco:nmended measures is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other'public agencies
and that these agencies can and should implement such measures.
Because che recommended rnit.igation measures rely in part upon
compliance with existing seismic safety practices and standards, it
is expected that other jurisdictions will implement the measures to
a large extent. However~ because the extent of the potential
cumulative impact from future projects is presently unknown, and
because the extent to which other agencies can and will implement
the recommended mitigation measures beyond current minimum
standards is uncertain, the Council cannot fully determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen the potential cumulative impact associated with
increased development in the seismically sensitive region around
the projects. The Council therefore finds that this cumulative
impact remains potentially significant despite the adoption of
available mitigation measures by the City.
31
970702 lac 0031$88
• •
4 I 9 IIJDBOLOGY AND WATIB OVALIH
4.9-1 Grading, excavation and conatruction activities could
result in increased deposition of sediaent and/or discharge of
pollutants in the storm drainage syatea and San Praneiaq"dito Creek
and adver8ely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9·l(a) requires the applicant to prepare,
retain and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(aSWPPP") which describes the site, erosion and sediment controls,
means of material storage and waste disposal. implementation of
approved local plans, post-construction control measures and
maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water management
controls. The plan shall implement appropriate Best Management
Practices ("BMPs•) identified in the EIR.
Mitigation measure 4.9-l(b) requires that the SWPPP shall be
prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City's
Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit.
The SWPPP shall be implemented and inspected as part of the
approval process for the grading plans fo~ each project.
Mitigation measure 4. 9-1 {c} requires that a}.l construction
contracts include the City's construction contract Pollution
Prevention Language as part of the project specifications.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential sedimentation and contaminant impacts on
San Francisquito Creek to a less than significant level~ The
adopted mitigation measures implement regulatory requirements and
practices demonstrated to prevent excessive or damaging runoff of
sediments and pollutants from development sites. Residual runoff
of sediments and contaminants from construction areas, if any, will
not occur in sufficient quantities to significantly degrade
existing water quality.
4.9-4 Increased ~ervious surface and landscaping associated
with developm.en t of the Proposed Projects could increase urban
contaminants in surface runoff potentially reducing water quality
in San Francisquito Creek.
Mitigation measure 4.9-4(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a) through (c) for all approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects.
Mitigation measure 4. 9 .. 4 (b) requires that the SWPPP shall
include in the final project design appropriate BMPs selected by
the City, consisting either of detailed measures identified in the
EIR or equivalent measures.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential impacts on San Francisquito Creek to a less
than significant level. These adopted mitigation measures require
implementation of design features and operational practices which
will reduce contamination of exposed surfaces at the project site
32
970702 lac 0031,88
• •
and trap or otherwise m1n1m1ze runoff of such contaminants from the
site. Residual contaminant runoff reaching San Francisquito Creek
is not expected to constitute a sufficient addition to loads from
existing development in the watershed to result in any measurable
further deterioration of water quality.
4.9-5 Project construction activities in combination ~th other
construction projects in the Watershed could cumulatively increase
aed~ent and other construction-related pollutants in Saa
Prancisquito Creek and adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(a) recommends that all area
jurisdictions ensure that project applicants include BMPs in
construction contracts implementing the .requirements of NPDES
Municipal Storm Water Permit #CAS029718.
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(b) recommends that applicants for all
area projects of five acres or more, be re~..1ired to prepare a
detailed SWPPP under the State General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit.
Mitigation measure 4. 9 · 5 (c) requires implement.at i.on .of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a) through (c} for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects.
The recornmended mitigation measures or equivalent measures
have been incorporated in the conditions of approval for the
Stanford West Senior Housing project and for the other Sand Hill
Corridor projects approved concurrently with the project. The
Council finds that adoption of these project-specific measures will
lessen the project's contribution to potential cumulative
sedimentation and contaminant impacts associated with construction
to a less than significant level and will also lessen the combined
cumulative impact of the approved Sand Hill Corridor projects to a
less than significant level. The adopted measures require
implementation of control measures which will preclude significant
sedimentation or contaminant impacts from the projects.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City's jurisdiction is
beyond the scope of approvals granted for the project; however, the
Council finds that the City can ar.d should adopt and ~lement such
measures for any future projects approved by the City which have a
potential to adversely affect San Francisquito Creek. With respect
to implementation of the recommended mitigation meastlres by
jurisdictions other than the City, the Council finds that
implementation of such measures is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies and that the recommended
measures can and should be implemented by these agencies. These
measures are generally consistent with requirements imposed by
state law. However, because ~he nature and extent of potential
area-wide cumulative impacts from future development are presently
unknown, and because the extent to which other agencies can and
will implement the recommended measures beyond min~~ standards is
presently unknown, the Council cannot determine at this t~e the
33
970702 lac 0031588
---------------------------------~~~----~ • •
extent to which the recommended measures will be implemented or the
extent to which these measures, if implemented, will avoid
potential cumulative impacts. The Council therefore finds that
this cumulative Lmpact remains potentially significant despite the
adoption of available mitigation measures by the Council~
4.9-6 Increased ~ervious surfaces associated with development
of the Stanford Sand Bill Road Corridor Projects and areas in the
San Prancisquito Creek Watershed could cumulatively increase
surface runoff, potentially increasing the frequency and severity
of existing downstream flooding.
Mitigation measure 4.9-6 recommends that all jurisdictions
regulating development in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed
require that adequate drainage and flood control facilities be
provided for existing and planned development, in compliance with
applicable General Plan goals and policies and ordinances and in
coordination with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
requirements.
The Council finds that measures included in the project design
and mitigation measures incorporated in the conditions of proj~ct
approval, specifically use of the on-site retention basin on the
neighboring Stanford West Apartments project site and mitigation
measure 4.9-21 effectively implement the above recommended
mitigation measure for the Stanford West Senior Housing project and
will reduce the potential contribution of the project to cumulative
flooding impacts to a less than significant level.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure is beyond
the scope of approvals granted for the project. However, the
Council finds that the City can and will consider adoption and
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures as future
development projects are proposed and in accordance with its
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. With respect to
implementation of the recommended mitigation measure by other
jurisdictions in the San Francisquito Creek watershed, the Council
finds that jurisdiction and responsibility for implementation of
the recommended mitigation measure is vested in other public
agencies and that such agencies can and should adopt and implement
appropriate mitigation programs. Because the extent of potential
cumulative impacts from future watershed development is currently
unknown, and because the Council cannot determine at this time the
extent to which adequate mitigation measures will be implemented by
other agencies, the Council cannot presently determine whether the
identified potential significant cumulative impact will be
substantially lessened or avoided by the recommended mitigation.
This cumulative impact therefore remains potentially significant.
34
970702 lac 0031 S88
• •
4.9-7 Increased ~ioua surface associated with development
of the Stanford Sand Bill Road Corridor Projects and areas in the
San Prancisquito Creek Watershed could cumulatively increase urban
coat.-inanta in surface runoff potentially reducing water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-7(a) recommends that all local
jurisdictions ensure that future project applicants include BMPs as
part of project design in accordance with San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) requirements.
Micigation measure 4. 9 ... , (b) notes that it is within the
jurisdiction of the SFBRWQCB to require that comprehensive SWPPPs
and monitoring programs be implemented by all storm water
dischargers associated with specified industrial activities, in
compliance with the State's General Permits, and to require that
such plans shall include BMPs or equally effective measures.
Mitigation measure 4.9-7(c) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-4(a) and (b) by all approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects.
The conditions of appro·val for the Stanford West Senior
Housing project incorporate each of the recommended
project-specific mitigation measures or equivalent measures to
mitigate identified potential cumulative contaminant impacts to San
Francisquito Creek. The Council finds that adoption of these
recommended measures will lessen the project's contribution to the
identified cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
The recommended measures have also been adopted in connection with
approval of the other approved Sand Hill Road Corridor proj~cts,
and will lessen the combined cumulative impact of the project.s to
a less than significant level.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures for future
development is beyond the scope of approvals granted·· for the
project. However, the Council finds that the City~can and should
adopt equivalent measures for all projects approved within its
jurisdiction. With respect to impacts resulting from future
development outside the-City, jurisdiction and responsibility for
implementation of recommended mitigation measures or equivalent
measures is vested in other public agencies. The Council finds
that these jurisdictions can and should implement such measures.
However, because the nature and extent of potential cumulative
impacts from future development are presently speculative c,nd
unknown, and the degree to which other jurisdictions will implement
recommended mitigation measures is uncertain, the Council cannot
deter:mine at this time the extent to which the recommended measures
will be implemented outside the City's boundaries and also cannot
determine the extent to which these measures, if implemented, will
lessen or avoid the identified potential cumulative impact. This
cumulative impact therefore remains potentially significant.
35
.--------------------------------------------------~~ • •
t,lO PQBLIC SAfiTX
4.10·1 Iapleaentation of the propoeed projects could expose
eonatruction workers to unidentified exiating soil and/or
groundwater contaminants at levels which could cause illness.
Mitigation measure 4.10-l(a) requires that after demolition of
the existing structures, an investigation shall be completed to
detect and/or determine the extent of any contaminated soil or
groundwater on the project site&
Mitigation measure 4.10-l(c) requires that if investigation
reveals evidence of chemical contamination, underground storage
tanks, or other e~vironmental impairments on the site, a
remediation plan shall be prepared which will (1) specify measures
to protect workers and the public; and (2) ensure clean up and
disposal of contaminants and protect public health in accordance
with federal, state, and local recru.irements. Work in the areas of
potential hazard shall not proceed until the site remediation plan
has been implemented. Appropriate agencies shall be notified as
required. A site health and safety plan shall also be developed
and implemented in cc8plia:1ce wit.h OSPJ\ requ:~rements to enstJ.re
worker safety.
The EIR concluded that although there are no known deposits or
residues of unsafe contaminants on the project site, toxic
rraterials and biological wastes were present on the site during its
use as Stanford's Children:s Hospital, and there remains a
potenti~l that such naterials could be found in soils on the site.
The Council finds that the adopted mitigation measures will reduce
this potential impact to a less than significant level by ensuring
that the site is fully investigated and evaluated for the possible
presence of harmful substances~ and indicated remediation efforts
undertaken if contaminants are detected in amounts which might pose
a hazard. ·
4.10-2 Implementation of the proposed projects could expose
construction workers to asbestos containing materials presently
located in buildings and other structures, resulting in adverse
health effects.
Mitigation measure 4.10-2(b) requires that all asbestos
containing materials shall be removed and appropriately disposed of
by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to any building
demolition. A site health and safety plan will be developed and
implemented in compliance with OSHA requirements to ensure worker
safety ..
The EIR concluded that due to the known presence of asbestos
in some buildings which will be demolished on the site, there
exists a potentially significant threat that workers could be
exposed to asbestos during demolition. The Council finds that the
adopted mdtigation measure will lessen this potentially significant
impact to a less than significant level by requiring that all
asbestos containing materials be removed by qualified personnel
36
9707021&<: ool t ~u
• •
through accepted safe practices, and that any residual potential
impacts be addressed through appropriate safety measures
incorporated into a health and safety plan for project workers.
4.10-4 Implementation of the proposed projects could expose
construction workers to electrical transfor.aera ADd/or fluoraacent
light ballasts potentially containing PCBaf and aubaequent adverse
health effects ..
~tigation measure t.l0-4(a) requires that all transformers on
the project site that have not been tested for PCBs shall be tested
prior to demolition and construction activities. Transformers
found to contain PCBs will be removed and disposed of
appropriately.
Mitigation measure 4.10~4(o) requires that light ballasts in
existing on-site facilities be tested for PCEs prior to d~~lition.
Should PCBs be detected; all light ba:lasts shall be removed from
the facility and appropriately disposed of by a licensed hazardous
waste hauler per Title 22 requirements.
Mitigation measure 4.10-4{e) requires that a site health and
safety plan be developed in compliance with OSHA requirements to
ensure worker safety prior to comrr:enc1ng removal and disposal of
PCB-laden materials.
The EIR concluded that two electrical transformers and
florescent light fixtures on the property could contain PCBs which
could have a significant impact. on construction workers if
accidentally released during demolition activities4 The Council
finds that the adopted mitigations measures will lessen this
potentially significant impact to a less than significant level by
providing for testing and safe removal of all transformers and
florescent fixtures containing PCBs prior to commencement of
demolition and construction activities.
4.11 UTILITIES, ENERGY1 AND I~RASTRUCTURE
4.11-3 The proposed projects could use water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4.11-3 re~Jires that in order to reduce
water consumption, the project design shall incorporate measures to
maximize the efficient use of water and minimize total water
consumption. Specific measures to be included are the following:
9707021ac 00315&8
All landscape designs shall incorporate and address the
City Landscape Water Efficiency Standar1s. The project
sites would be subject to an annual maximum water
allowance for landscaping.
The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of
Palo Alto Utilities Department, Resource Management
Division to detennine other conservation related
improvements that would apply to the projects.
37
---------------------------------~--·--~-~ • •
The EIR concluded that because final plans have not been
completed by the applicant specifying how water, particularly for
landscaping, would be efficiently used, there existed a potential
that water could be used wastefully by the project. The Council
finds that the adopted mitigation measure will lessen this
potentially significant impact to insignificance by ensuring that
final landscaping and construction plans meet current City Water
Efficiency Standards and incorporate additional conservation
measures if recommended by City staff.
4.11-4 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing water services.
Mitigation measure 4.11·4 provides that prior to the start of
construction of infrastructure, the project applicant shall provide
a plan for review and approval to the City of Palo Alto Director of
Utilities outlining the approach to be taken to minimize the impact
to existing utilities and customers.
The EIR determined that operations necessary to connect
infrastructure associated with the project to existing service
lines and facilities could result in potentially signific~nt
interruptions of utility ser.\rices for existing users, specifically
interruptions of water service (Impact 4-11-4), wastewater service
(Impact 4-11-11), electrical service (Impact 4-11-17} and gas
service (Impact 4-11-24.) The Council finds that the adopted
mitigation measure will lessen each of these potentially
significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring
the applicant to submit and obtain approval of plans which will
provide for completion of all utility connections for the project
with the minimum necessary interruption of existing services.
4.11-7 Cumulative development could use water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4.11-7 provides that the City shall ensure
that each new project approved within the City· requiring-ARB
approval is required to be consistent with and implement the City
policies and programs related to water conservation.
The EIR concluded that existing City policies and programs.are
adequate to avoid cumulative wasteful use of water, and that a
significant adverse impact had the potential to occur only if the
City failed to continue to implement these policies and programs.
The recommended mitigation measure provides that the City will
continue to implement existing water conservation policies by
making compliance a condition of ARB approval for all new projects.
While implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the Stanford West Senior Housing project,
the Council finds that this mitigation measure can and should be
implemented with respect to future projects and will lessen the
identified potentially significant cumulative impact to
insignificance.
38
970702 lac 00315&8
• •
4.11·9 The proposed projects would require improvement of the
exieting 21-ineh wastewater line.
Mitigation measure 4.11-9 requires that in the event that
open-trench technology is used, the project applicant shall ensure
that the new 24-inch wastewater line is constructed coincident
with, and placed in the right-of~way of, Palo Roadl during Phase I
of project construction, thereby avoiding the potential biological
impacts and conflicts with future uses associated with the
alternative location of the line.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the potential significant adverse impacts associated
with construction of a new 21" wastewater line to a less than
significant level. This mitigation measure requires the applicant
to either use technology which avoids trenching and resulting tree
removal in the Stanford arboretum, or to relocate the route of the
replacement pipeline along existing right-of-way containing no
significant enviro.n.."t1ental resources in order to avoid impacts to
the arboreturn.
4oll~ll Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing wastewater serviceao
Mitigation measure 4.11-11 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4, discussed above.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4.11-13 CUmulative development could require major infrastructure
~rovements to the existing wastewater system.
Mitigation measure 4.11·13(a) recommends that the Gity of Palo
Alto Utilities Department ensure that developers responsible for
construction of new wastewater lines coordinate with all other
parties intending to utilize the line. ~
Mitigation measure 4.11-13 (b) recommends that sewer line
capacity studies satisfactory to the City's Director of Utilities
be conducted prior to initiating future cumulative development.
Mitigation measure 4.1l-13(e) recommends that all final
designs for the sizing of new sewer mains shall be based on
infiltration from a 20-year storm and peak base wastewater flow ..
The EIR concluded that lack of coordinated planning for future
development could result in failure to adequately size area
wastewater lines, resulting in future need to again upgrade these
lines to provide needed capacity. The recommended mitigation
measures provide for full evaluation and correct sizing of mains
prior to cumulative development. The Council finds that adoption
of these measures will lessen the project's contribution to this
potential cumulative impact to a less-than significant level.
These mitigation measures will also lessen the overall potential
cumulative impact to a less than significant level since
39
9707021ac 0031,88
•
implementation of these measures will
adequate long-term capacity for all
development.
•
result in provJ.s 1on of
reasonably foreseeable
4.11·17 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
exi•ting electrical services.
Mitigation measure 4.11-17 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11··4 for all Sand Hill Corridor projects.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4.11-24 Construction of the proposed ~rovements could disrupt
exist ina gas services.
Mitigation measure 4 .l.l-24 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4 for all Sand Hill Corridor projects.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4~12 PQ»LIC SERVICES AND SCHOOLS
~ .12 ·~ 2 The proposed projects would increase the number of
emergency medical service calls to the PAFD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-2(b) requires the applicant to pay a
fair share for the cost of a new paramedic unit. This measure is
implemented through Condition 45 of the project conditions of
approval, which provides that the applicant shall pay $36,960 to
the City as its share of the costs of a new paramedic van.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project's potential impact on emergency medical
services to a less than significant level. Condition 45 ensures
that necessary funds will be made available when addition of new
paramedic unit is determined necessary by the City to maintain
current levels of service.
The Council also finds that adoption of the alternative
~~tigation measure 4.12-2(a) identified in the EIR is not necessary
to avoid potential significant adverse effects of the project on
emergency medical services. Mitigation measure 4.12-2(a) proposes
that the applicant provide private on-demand ambulance service to
residents of the Stanford West Senior Housing project. The Council
finds that increasing City-wide emergency medical response
capabilities through a combination of applicant funds and other
funds is a more desirable and cost-effective means of maintaining
adequate emergency medical service levels for project residents and
City residents generally than requiring the applicant to maintain
special on-call ambulance services for project residents.
40
91010liKOOlUI8
• •
4.12-4 eu.ulative developaent would increase the annual number
of fire suppression service calla to the PAPD.
Mitigation measure 4.12·4 identifies three alternative means
for offsetting cumulative increased demands on Palo Alto Fire
Department {PAFD)resources. The conditions of approval for the
project adopt the third of these alternate means, specifically:
The City will provide additional resources to the PAFD
through the City~s General Fund from the increased tax
revenues generated by the Sand Hill Corridor projects and
other future cumulative projects.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified cww~lative impact on fire suppression services to a
less than significant level for each of the Sand Hill Corridor
projects and future development. Cost a.nd revenue projections for
the approved projects indicate that increased tax revenues from the
projects and other potential future development will be more than
adequate to fund additional resources for the PAFD necessary to
maintain current levels of service th-r:oughout the City. The
Council also finds that the alternative means of funding increa~ed
PAFD resources identified in EIR mitigation measure 4.12-4,
specifically {1) fair share applicant funding of new PAFD
personnel, and (2) fair-share contributions from future projects,
are not necessary based on current information to maintain adequ.ate
fire protection within the City and would result in imposing
unnecessary special additional costs on new development.
4.12-5 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of medical emergency service calls to the PAFD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-5 identifies two alternative means of
covering costs of additional emergency medical services should
increases in current personnel and/or equipment prove necessary to
meet future d~and. The conditions of approval provide that the
City shall adopt the second of these alternatives, specifically,
the City shall. provide additional medi-van resources to the PAFD if
needed with general fund increases from tax revenues generated by
the projects and other future cumulative projects.
The Council has adopted the second of these mitigation
alternatives for the Sand Hill Corridor projects. The Council
finds that the adopted mitigation measure will lessen the
identified potential cwnulative impact on emergency medical
services to a less than significant level4 Cost and revenue
projections indicate that increased tax revenues from the Sand Hill
Corridor projects and other potential future development will be
adequate to fund additional emergency medical resources as needed
to maintain current levels of service throughout the City. The
Council also finds that the alternative means of funding increased
emergency medical services identified in EIR mitigation measure
4.12-5, specifically that future development projects directly pay
a fair share toward a medi -van unit or, is not necessary to
41
970702 bc0031St8
• •
maintain adequate level of emergency medical services based on
current information.
4.12-6 Increased construction traffic
development could reduce PAFD reaponae tiaee.
froa cuaulative
Mitigation measure 4.12·6 provides that as part of the project
approval process, the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and
Community Environment shall ensure the following:
All projects coordinate with the PAFD and Palo Alto
Police Department (PAPD) to prepare an emergency response
plan for the construction period that specifies alternate
emergency response routes to the project site and
vicinity which meet the Departments' response time goals;
and
The Emergency Response Plan for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects will specify procedures to allow simultaneous
construction withcut increasing er-.ergency response times
to an unacceptable level.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation meas~re
will lessen the project's potential iiT~.pact on PAFD emergency
response times to insignificance. This measure ensures that
detailed plans will be developed and imple.onented to ensure that
existing or adequate alternative response routes will be kept open
at all times to permit PAFD responses to all service areas within
PAFD response time standards.
4.12-8 Design of the proposed projects could present security
risks to occupants and police patrol personnel.
Mitigation measure 4.12-8 prov1aes that the applicant 1 S
lighting and landscaping plans will be reviewed with the PAPD to
eliminate safety risks.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the identified potential safety impact to a less than
significant level. This measure will ensure that qualified City
police officers will review lighting and landscaping plans to so
that the plans are designed to eliminate potential security hazards
such as poorly lit areas along walkways.
4.12-10 CUmulative development would increase the annual number
of police service calls to the PAPD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-10 identifies three alternate means of
funding additional police services to offset increased demand on
Palo Alto Police Department resources. Condition 2.0 of the
project conditions of approval provides that the City shall adopt
the second of these alternatives, specifically~ the City shall fund
additional PAPD resources from increased tax revenues generated by
the projects and other future cumulative projects,
42
970702 lac 0031588
• •
The Council findG that adoption of this measure will lessen
the potential cumulative impact of the project and of new
development generally on police services to a less than significant
level. Cost and revenue projections indicate that increased tax
revenues from the Sand Hill Corridor projects and other potential
future development will be adequate to fund additional emergency
medical resources as needed to maintain current levels of service
throughout the City. The Council also finds that the alternative
means of funding increased emergency medical services identified in
EIR mitigation measure 4.12-5, specifically that future development
projects directly pay a fair share toward a medi-van unit or, is
not necessary to maintain adequate level of emergency meaical
services based on current information.
4.12-11 Designs of cumulative development projects could present
security risks to occupants and police patrol personnel~
Mitigation measure 4.12-11 recommends that the City Department
of Planning and Community Enviro~ment ensure that future project
lighting and landscaping are reviewed \l.rith the PAPD to reduce
safety risks. The ARB shall provide final review and approval.
This mitigation measure has been effectively implemented wi'th
respect to the Stanford West Senior Housing project through the
adoption of mitigation measure 14.12-8. The Council finds that
adoption of the measure will reduce the project's contribution to
any potential significant cumulative impact to a less than
significant level. This mitigation measure has also been adopted
in conjunction with approval of the Stanford West Apartments
project. Ad0ption of this mitigation measure as a policy governing
review and approval of all future development within the City is
beyond the scope of approvals granted for the Stanford West Senior
Housing project. However, the Council finds that the recommended
mitigation measure can and should be implemented in relation to
future development projects within the City.
4.12-12 Increased construction traffic from
development could increase PAPD response t~es.
cumulative
Mitigation measure 4.12-12 requires implementation . of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 by all approved Sand Hill Road Corridor
Projects.
This mitigation measure has been implemented by adoption of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 for the each of the approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects. The Council finds that irr~plementation of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 will lessen the cumulative impact of
construction of the projects on PAPD response times to a less than
significant level.
43
970702 lac 0031.588
• •
4.12·14 CUmulative development, including the p~opoaed Stanford
Weat Apartments Project, would cause K-l2th grade enrol~ents to
exceed PADSD school capacity of 916 students or 12 percent in year
2004-2005.
The EIR proposed the adoption of mitigation measure 4.12·14 to
mitigate this identified cumulative impact. Mitigation measure
4.12-14 recommends that the City adopt a policy that encourages all
future developers to contribute their fair share over and above
payment of the development fee to mitigate school impacts.
The Stanford West Senior Housing project will not result in
addition of any children to area schools, and thus will not cause
or contribute to any cumulative impact on public schools regardless
of the adoption of this suggested mitigation measure. Howeverf the
Council recognizes that cumulative impacts on public schools from
future development are potentially significant, and further finds
that these impacts would remain potentially significant whether or
not the suggested mitigation measure is adopted as a policy of the
City since contributions by developers would remain voluntary
regardless of City encouragement. Adoption of a City p~licy of
encouraging future developers to contribute school mitig~cjon fuqds
in excess of mandatory development fees is beyond the scope of
approvals for the Stanford West Senior Housing project. 20~~ever,
the Council has taken substantial steps to encourage the project
applicant to discuss and fund mutually acceptable miti.gation
measures with the school district in conjunction with the Stanford
West Apartments project approved concurrently with this project,
and can and will continue to take similar steps to encourage
volunta~~ additional contributions by developers of future proj~~ts
with the goal of fully offsetting any impacts which cannot be
mitigated through mandatory development fees and tax revenue
increases associated with new development.
4. 12 -17 The operation of the proposed projects would·.· increase ·
solid waste generation in the City of Palo Alto requiring increased
diversion to meet the goals of AB 939.
Mitigation measure 4.12-17(a) requires that as a condition of
project approval, the applicant shall prepare and obtain approval
from the City Public Works Department of a landfill diversion
management program that meets the diversion goals of the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element {SRRE) and AB939. The program
shall include specific provisions detailed in the EIR.
Mitigation measure 4.12-17(b} recommends that the City require
all new development projects to prepare operation re~ycling
programs which will meet the AB939 diversion goal of 50 percent by
2000. The progrrun shall include specific provisions detailed in
the EIR ..
The Council finds that adoption of mitigation measure
4.12-l?(a) will lessen the project's potential solid waste impacts
to a less than significant level. This mitigation measure requires
the applicant to develop, with City supervision, a plan which will
44
970702 lac 0031 !>88
... -----------------------------~---~--~---------------~--• •
ensure that solid wastes from the project are processed in a manner
which ensure compliance with the recycling goals of AB939.
Adoption and enforcement of mitigation measure 4.12-l?{a) will also
implement mitigation measure 4.12-17(b) with respect to the
project.. Adoption of mitigation measure 4 .. 12 _, 17 {b) as a policy
governing review and approval of all future development within the
City is beyond the scope of the decision and approvals granted for
the Stanford West Senior Housing project. However, the Council
finds that the proposed mitigation measure can and should adopted
in relation to future development projects approved by the City.
4.12-18 Ybe proposed projects would increase solid waste
generation ~ the City of Palo Alto during construction requiring
increased diversion to meet the goals of AB 939.
Mitigation measure 4~12-18 requires the applicant to prepare
and implemP-~t a construction recycling plan approved by the City
Public Works Department. The plan shall include specific steps to
achieve the City's short-ter:m SRRE diversion goal of 30-40 percent
through various specified measures.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified potential solid waste impact to a less than
significant level. The approved recycling plan will ensure that
provision is made for recovering all recyclable wastes generated
during construction, thus avoiding unnecessary placement of
recyclable materials in landfills.
4.12-19 Cumulative development anticipated by the City through
Year 2010, including the proposed projects, would increase solid
waste generation by 5.5 percent over 1995 levels to 155,650 tons
per year based on the projected growth of population and employees • .
Mitigation measure 4.l2-19(a) recommends that the City require
significant new development projects to prepare construction
recycling plans as part of the project approval·.· process. The
construction plan shall include specific steps to achieve the AB939
diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000 through various specified
measures.
Mitigation measure 4.12-19(b) recommends that the City require
new development projects to prepare long-term operational recycling
programs as part of project approval process. The programs should
meet the AB939 diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000, and inclade
various additional specified elements
These mitigation measures have been effectively applied to the
Stanford West Senior Housing project through the adoption of
mitigation measures 4.12-l?(a) and 4.12-18. The Council finds that
adoption of those measures will reduce the project's contribution
to potential cumulative solid waste imnacts to a less than
significant level. Adoption of mitigation .. measure 4.12-19 (a) and
4.12-19(b} as polictes governing review and approval of all future
development within the City is beyond the scope of the decision and
approvals granted for the Stanford West Senior Housing project.
45
970702 ~ac ooJ 1 sn
-------------------------------------~-----~-·-···---• •
However, the Council finds that adoption of the proposed mitigation
measures or equivalent mee\eures can and should be adopted in
relation to future development projects approved by the City.
The EIR concluded that. the Stanford West Senior Housing
project will have a significant growth inducing impact in that
upgrading of the existing 21• sewer line serving the project area
to the 24• line necessary to serve the project and the Stanford
West Apartments and Stanford Shopping Center Expansion projects
will re*..move an cbstacle to growth of the Stanford Medical Center,
which has announced tentative plans for expansion. The EIR does
not identify any potential mitigation measures for this growth-
inducing impact. The 24-aewer line will be constructed with the
minimum. size pipe available with sufficient capacity to ensure
adequate service of the approved Sand Hill Corridor development
projects. Since excess capacity will still be provided by this
sewer line which could facilitate e.x-pansion of the Stanford Medical
Center or other development., this impact is significant~
Tb.e EIR concluded that the overall set of roadway improvements
may ser~'e to remove an obstacle to development of the contemplated
400,000 square foot expansion of the Stanford Medical Center. The
traffic impacts of such development of the Medical Center as well
as the impacts of cu."11ulative development along the Sand Hill
corridor were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis
contained in the EIR. The EIR finds the impacts of such cu~nulative
development within the Sand Hill corridor significant~ as discussed
elsewhere in these findings.
46
970702 * 0031 sn
• •
PART II
ALTBRHATIVES TO THE PROJBCT
The Council has also considered the alternatives to the
project analyzed in the EIR. Based on the following
considerations, the Council has detennined that all identified
alternatives to the project are infeasible. The findings set forth
below stating this Council's reasons fo.r rejecting each alternative
in favor of the project describe several separate grounds for
rejecting each alternative, each of which this Council has
determined constitutes an independent basis for this Council's
decision to approve the project and to reject the proposed
alternative.
No PrQject -N~ D~velo~ment
This alternative a.ssumes that no new development is a~Jthorized
on the project site. The Council finds that this alternative is
infeasible because it would preclude development of needed and
desirable new housing and care facilities within the City for
senior citizens. In addition, this alternative would result in
continued lack of productive use of the property despite fts
existing developed condition. The Council believes that
redevelopment of the property for beneficial uses S\1Ch as that
proposed by the applicant is desirable and preferable to locating
new development on currently undeveloped land.
No Projc~t -No Action
This alternative assumes that the ex~st~ng buildings on the
project site are reoccupied and returned to use as an active
medical facility~ Renovation and improvement of existing
structures to meet current standards and needs of the medical use
would probably take place under this alternative.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible because
it ·would not result in the development of needed and desirable new
housing and care facilities for senior citizens~ This alternative
would also result in worsening of the current jobs-housing balance
within the City, in contravention of the City1 s importan.t policy of
attempting to achieve a more favorable balance of emplo}~ent
opportunities to housing opportunities in the City. In addition,
while some short-term on-site impacts of this alternative could be
less than the proposed projectr this alternative would result in
higher traffic and air quality impacts than the approved project.
Implementation of this alternative is also highly uncertain in that
there is presently no known persons or institution which has
expressed an interest in occupying the site for medical uses.
75% DeveloDment Alternative
This alternative consists of development Jf approxirr~tely 292
rather than 388 senior residential units on the site, and
corresponding 25% reductions in the number of skilled nursing units
47
970702 lac 0031 '88
• •
and assisted living units in the Health Care Center. This
alternative would permit elimination of one building and
modifications to others including elimination of wings and
reduction in height by eliminating some upper stories~ A proposed
revised site plan implementing this alternative is included at Pw
6.1-34 of the EIR; the Council also assumes that this alternative
design could be modified to further reduce visual impacts if this
alternative were selected for implementation. Due to reduced
density and corresponding reduction in some building heights and
building mass, this alternative would result in some incremental
reduction of traffic, visual, land use and other impacts of the
proposed project. However, some reduction of these impacts has
also already been accomplished by revisions and ~tigation measures
adopted during the City's CEQA process. Because the alternative
still involves substantial redevelopment of the site with large new
buildings, the alternative will still result in significant and
unavoidable land use, visual and traffic impacts at some
intersections, although of Jesser magnitude than the proposed
project.
The Council further finds that this alternative is infeasible
because it would result in an unacceptable loss of needed hous~ng
units and special care facilities for senior citizens.
Construction of all units in the proposed project is required
to assist the City in meeting its anticipated need for new housing
units for the period 1996-2002, and to meet special needs
identified in the federally required "Consolidated Plan for the
City of Palo Alto {1995-2000}," which estimates a need for
constructio!i of up to 1, 000 units of assisted living units and
skilled nursing or 24-hour care facilities for up to 950 individual
senior citizens in the City. St~dies performed by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), summarized in the draft Housing
Element Technical Document for the draft City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan now in preparation, project a need for
construction of 1244 new housing units within the City for the
period 1996-2002 to enable the City to satisfy its fair share of
regional housing demands. Elderly households presently comprise
about 25\ of all households in the City. Elimination of
approximately 96 residential units and a corresponding reduction in
other residential care facilities provided by the project would
substantially and unacceptably impair the City's ability to provide
new quality housing for senior residents of the City and to meet
the anticipated need for new assisted living units in the City and
the region.
Reduction of the project by approximately 96 units would also
result in continued demand and resulting pressure for construction
of new senior housing within the City or surrounding area. In
addition, during public hearings the Crni~cil received substantial
public testimony indicating that the project will provide
attractive alternate housing for senior residents of the City who
now occupy traditional single family homes, enabling these senior
citizens to move from un.derutilized single family homes and make
these homes available for purchase or rental by younger families.
48
970702 lac 0031588
··, ......
• •
Reduction of the number of units included in the project would also
reduce this secondary housing benefit of the project.
The marginal decreases in environmental impacts which would
result from this alternative are not justified by the significant
loss of senior housing units and reductions in senior care
facilities which would result from the alternative. The Council
believes that in the overall balancing of growth management and
housing needs, efficient use of the projE:ct site for the maximum
number of senior residential units which can be acconunodated
consistent with environmental and design constraints is preferable
to reduced density development which will result in loss of needed
senior residential units and care facilities.
SO\ Development Alternative
This alternative consists of development of approximately 194
rather than 388 residential units on the site, and corresponding
50% reductions in the nillnber of skilled nursing units and assisted
living units in the Health Care Center. This alternative would
pe:rmit elimination of buildings and modifications to others
including elimination of wings and reduction in height by
eliminating some upper stories. Due to reduced density and reduced
building mass, this alternative would reduce many of the impacts of
the project, including, traffic, visual, land use and other impacts
but would not avoid or reduce to insignificance the significant
land use, visual and traffic impacts associated with redevelopment
of the site.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible because
it would result in an unacceptable loss of needed housing ~nits and
special care facilities for the City's senior citizens.
Construction of all units in the proposed project ·is required
to assist the City in meeting its anticipated need for new housing
units for the period 1996-2002, and to meet~ special needs
identified in the federally required "Consolidated Plan for the
City of Palo Alto (1995-2000}," which estimates a need for
construction of up to 1, 000 units of assisted living units and
skilled nursing or 24-hour care facilities for up to 950 individual
senior citizens in the City. Studies performed by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), summarized in the draft Housing
Element Technical Document for the draft City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan now in preparation, project a need for
construction of 1244 new housing units within the City for the
period 1996-2002 to enable the City to satisfy its fair share of
regional housing demands. Elderly households presently comprise
about 25\ of all households in the City. Elimination of
approximately 192 residential units and a 50% reduction in other
senior care facilities provided by the project would substantially
and unacceptably impair the City's ability to provide new quality
housing for senior residents of the City and to meet the
anticipated need for new assisted living units in the City and the
region.
49
910702 lac 0031 S88
• •
Reduction of the project by approximately 192 units would also
result in continued demand and resulting pressure for construction
of new senior housing within the City or surrounding area. In
addition, during public hearings the Council received substantial
public testimony indicating that the project will provide
attractive alternate housing for senior residents of the City who
now occupy traditional single family homes, enabling these senior
citizens to move from underutilized single family homes and make
these homes available for purchase or rental by younger families.
Reduction of the n~~r of units included in the project would also
reduce this secondary housing benefit of the project.
The decreases in environmental impacts which would result from
this alternative are not justified by the significant loss of
senior housing units and reductions in senior care facilities
which would result from the alternative. The Council believes that
in the overall balancing of growth management and housing needs,
efficient use of the project site for the maximum number of senior
residential units which can be accommodated consistent with
enviror11~ental and desigr1 const.raints is prefera.ble to redtlced
density development which will result in loss of needed senior
residential unit-s and care facilities and continued demand for
construction of such facilities at other locations in the area:
~ys West Al~ernative S1te
The Campus viest alternative site is an undeveloped parcel
owned by Stanford south of Sand Hill Road and across from the Oak
creek Apartments which border the Stanford West Apartments site.
The Campus West site is currently outside the jurisdiction of the
City and entirely within the territory of the County of Santa
Clara. The EIR evaluated relocation of both the Stanford West
Apart.ments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects to this site,
and concluded that both could be substantially accommodated with
extensive redesign and a probable increase in building· ·heights.
The EIR also noted that some reduction could be made in the total
n\hi\ber of units approved on the West Campus site to better
accommodate site constraints and provide for mitigation of impacts.
However, for purposes of considering this alternative, the Council
has assumed that all senior residential units and all other senior
care facilities currently proposed as part of the Stanford West
Senior Housing project could be accommodated on the Campus West
site with acceptable environmental effects. In considering this
alternative, the Council has also considered the possibility of
partially adopting this alternative by relocating only the Stanford
West Senior Housing project to the Campus West site. Development
of the Stanford West Senior Housing only on the site would provide
maximum flexibility to design and locate the project to minimize
adverse environmental effects, and could limit loss of open space
on the Campus West site to less than half of the site. The
Council~ however, finds that development of the Stanford West
Senior Housing on the West Campus site, either alone or in
conjunction with development of the Stanford West Apartments
project, is infeasible and should be rejected for the following
reasons:
50
97\l?Ollac 0031 SIS
• •
1. The alternative is inconsistent with existing Santa Clara
County and City of Palo Alto land use designations and
policies for use of the West Campus site. Use of the
property for housing unrelated to academic needs is also
inconsistent with Stanford's long range master plan for
use of campus lands.
2. Implementation of this alternative is uncertain and
would, even if implemented~ involve substantial delay in
construction of new senior housing and care facilities.
3. On balance, the alternative is not environmentally
superior to the proposed project in that it would result
in loss of existing open space and related grassland and
oak habitat rather than reuse of an existing developed
site.
The Campus West site is presently designated in the Santa
Clara County general plan and Stanford's general use permit and in
Stanford's land use plans as n~~jor Educational and Institutional
Uses." Long term development plans for this property by Stanford
contemplate development of educational, resea.rch or other
facilities directly related to the University's academic missfon
rather than non-University housing or income-producing uses.
Because development of housing, particularly housing not intended
for academic use! on the Campus West site is inconsistent with
Stanford's existing long-tenn plans, it is uncertain that Stanford
would attempt to implement this alternative .if requested by the
City. Failure by Stanford to pursue this alternative would result
in loss of all new senior housing units and related senior care
facilities associated with the project.
If Stanford did elect to pursue this alternative,
implementation would require submittal of an entirely new
application and commencement of a new approval process either by
the County of Santa Clara, or by the City if annexation is proposed
as part of the project 4 Due to the size of the project and
potential environmental impacts of development at this alternate
location, the approval process would necessarily involve a complete
redesign of the project and a new environmental impact report,
resulting in substantial delays in construction of any actual new
senior housing and care facilities. Because many of the potential
impacts of this alternative, including loss of open space 1 visual
impacts, increase in area traffic and changes in character of the
area and loss of habitat area are similar in nature to the impacts
of the approved project. it is probable that implementation of the
alternative would also be subject to public opposition greater than
experienced by the approved proj€:ct. Under existing agreements
between Stanford, the County of Santa Clara and the City,
development of senior housing on this site would include annexation
of the prop~rty to the City. While the City would have primary
approval authority over any such development proposal, the City
cannot prejudge its ultimate decision on any such application, and
implementation of the alternative is therefore uncertain even if
annexation is proposed. Because there is already a substantial and
51
970702 lac 0031588
• •
immediate need for additional housing and for new senior care
facilities in the City, the Council believes that the additional
delay and uncertainty of implementation of this alternative are
unacceptable and further render the alternative infeasible.
This alternative would also have important adverse
environmental impacts which the Council finds are, on balance,
worse than those of the proposed project. Specifically, this
alternative would result in substantial loss of grassland and oak
savannah habitat area, loss of open space and related land use and
visual impacts along the Sand Hill Road Corridor. While relocation
of the project to the Campus West site would also avoid or reduce
some of the impacts associated with redevelopment of the forn~r
Children's Hospital site, these impacts have in all cases been
mitigated to levels this Council finds acceptable, and which the
Council finds are more acceptable than the substantial impacts
which would result from development of the Ca~pus West site.
Quarr{ Road/El Camino Alternative Sitg
The Quarry Road/El Carnino site consists of approximately 6
acres of undeveloped la.nd owned by Stanford at the intersectio:1s of
El Camino Real and Qu.arry Road. The site is presently located
within the jurisdiction. of the County of Santa Clara; however, for
purposes of considering this alternative, the Council assumes that
the site would be annexed to the City as part of the approval
process for the alternative. The Council finds that develo~~ent of
the Stanford West Senior Housing at this alternative site is
infeasible and therefore rejects the alternative on the following
grounds:
1) Due to the smaller amount of land available at this site,
development at this site would result in unacceptable
loss of senior housing units;
2} The site is not as well suit~~ for development of senior
housing as is the proposed site, and would result in
incompatibility with surrounding uses;
3) Implementation of this alternative is uncertain .and
speculative and would, even if implemented, involve
substantial delay in construction of new senior housing
and care facilities; and
4) This alternative would not be sufficiently
environmentally preferable to the proposed project to
justify its adoption rather than the proposed site.
Due to the smaller {6 acre) size of this alternative site, L?-1·(;
EIR estimates that approximately 225 senior housing units, or about
58% of the proposed project overall, could be constructed on the
site after making reasonable allowances for setbacks, landscaping
and parking. A maximum of 240 residential units could be allowed
at residential zoning density of 40 units per acre. Implementation
of this alternative would thus result in the loss of 144 or more
52
970702 ~~ 0031 S88
--------------------~ -----------~ --------~ • •
senior residential use from the project. This loss of senior
housing units is unacceptable and renders the project infeasible
for reasons previously stated in reference to the 75% and sot
reduced density alternatives.
The site is also not as well suited for development of senior
housing and care facilities as is the proposed site. The site is
presently surrounded on three sides by roadways and major
commercial and institutional uses. Due to the relatively small
size of the parcel, noise and other impacts fro~ these adjoining
uses could not be adequately mitigated through buffer zones and
landscaping to meet the needs of project senior residents. Because
of the necessary height and bulk of buildings, the senior housing
project would also be visually incompatible with existing character
of the surrounding area.
Implementation of this alternative would also require
preparation and review of entirely new development plans, including
the probable preparation of a new enviror~ental impact report.
Under current agreements between Stanford~ the County of Santa
Clara and the City the site would be annexed to the City prior to
development, and the City would have primary approval authority
over any such development proposal. The City Council cannot
prejudge the ultimate decision on any such development proposal,
and there are substantial reasons, discussed above, to believe that
such a proposal would not ultimately be approved. Because there is
already a substantial and immediate need for additional housing and
for new senior care facilities in the City, the Council believes
that the additional delay and uncertainty of implementation of this
alternative further renders the alternative infeasible.
. This alternative would also not result in substantial
environmental advantages over the approved project that are so
substantial as to justify approval of this alternative instead of
the proposed project. Development of the Quarry Road site would
result in loss of existing open space, as well .~as trees which
currently occupy the site, and would also result in substantial
visual and land use impacts due to the change in character of the
site. While relocation of the project to the Quarry Road site
would also avoid some of the impacts associated with redevelop~ent
of the for.mer Children1 s Hospital site, the mitigation measures and
conditions of approval adopted in conjunction with the approved
project mitigate these same impacts to acceptable levels. The
Council finds that given the loss of open space and visual and land
use impacts which would result from development on the Quarry Road
site, the redevelopment of the former Children's Hospital Site for
the project will result in less environmental impacts overall than
development at the Quarry Road site.
No Housing Alternative
The EIR also examined a "no-housing" alternative which would
have consisted of approving 160,000 square feet of new commercial
space for the Stanford Shopping Center and approving the Sand Hill
Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project while
53
970702 lac 0031 S 88
• •
denying approval for the proposed Stanford West Apartments and
Stanford West Senior Housing projects. The primary purpose of this
BIR alternative was to examine the effects on the area
transportation system of approving only the proposed roadway
improvements and proposed shopping center expansion elements of the
Sand Hill Corridor projects. With respect to the Stanford West
Senior Housing project, the Council finds that the alternative is
infeasible for the reasons previously stated in reference to the No
Project-No Development alternative.
HQuaing With Limited Shopping Center Development
The BIR also examined a "housing with limited shopping center
expansion• alternative consisting of (1) approval of the Stanford
West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing; (2) construction
of 49,000 square feet of new Stanford Shopping Center space only;
(3) without any of the roadway improvements proposed in the Sand
Hill Road Extension and Re!ated Roadway Improvements project. The
Council does not consider this alternative to be an alternative to
the Stanford West Senior Housing project. This alternative was
evaluated in the EIR to examine the effects on the area
transportation system of approving only residential development and
limited shopping expansion, without major area roadway
improvements. This alternative is discussed in the findings
relating to the Stanford Shopping Center project .
...
54
-------------------------------~--• •
BXBIBIT D
&.TAIIPQI.D SIOPliXG CllrJ.'II U2ANSION PROJECT
CODBCIL PDIDIBGS CORCBRNING MITIGATION OP ENVIRONMEN'l'AL
IXPACTS AND CONSIDBRA'l'ION OP ALTERNATIVES
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") has read
and considered the Final Envirorunental Impact Report ( "EIR")
prepared for the Sta.nford Shopping Center Expansion project. The
BIR ~4S been prepared for five projects including the Stanford West
Apar~~nts, Stanford West Senior Housing, Stanford Shopping Center
Expansiont Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway
Improvements !"SHRE/RRI~"} projects, referred to collectively herein
as the ~sand Hill Corridor projects," and the Pasteur Drive Parcel
Annexation project. These projects are described in Chapter 3 of
the EIR, and include, as approved by the Council, the changes and
revisions described in Chapter 11 and in the "Final Surnmary of
Project Changes!( JT~ade a part of the Final EIR by the certifying
resolution.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the
Council has considered each environmental impact of the Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion project identified in the EIR, and each
of the mitigation measures and project alternatives evaluated in
the EIR.
The Council~s detailed findings for each significant
enviroili..~ntal impact or potentially significant environmental
impact identified in the EIR are set forth below. Each· significant
or potentially significant environmental impact identified in the
E!R is listed in bold. Those mitigation measures adopted or
partially adopted by the Council are also numbered in bold. The
Councilts reasons for rejection or partial rejection of certain
mitigation measures and reasons for selection among alternative
potential mitigation measures are described where appropriate~
The Council's reasons for rejecting specific alternatives to
the project identified in the EIR are stated in Part II of these
findings.
l
• •
PART I
CBARGBS AJlD XITIGATIOH IIBAS'U'R.BS ADOPTED TO REDUCE DIPACTS
4.1 LNJD VSI
4.1·5 ~lementation of the propoaed projects, in conjunction
with cumulative developaent within the Sand Bill Road Corridor,
would reault in a eb&nge in character in the area.
The EIR concludes that there are no feasible mitigation
measures available which will substantially reduce the identified
significant land use impact and that this impact is therefore
unavoidable. The approved Stanford Shopping Center Expansion
project itself will have relatively little adverse effect on the
existing character of the Sand Hill Corridor because the site is
currently extensively developed. The conditions for approval of
the project and other approved Sand Hill Corridor projects
incorporate a nurr~er of mitigation measures which will lessen the
overall severity of these impacts by reducing visual impacts,
providing for replacement and restoration of trees and habit,at
affected by the project of trees, enhancing opportunities for
pedestrian and bicycle travel in the corridor and mitigating
potential noise impacts on residences along Sand Hill Road. The
measures adopted in conjunction with approval of the Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion project are discussed in greater detail
in the detailed findings set forth below regarding mitigation of
visual, transportation, biological and noise impacts of the
project. Changes have also been incorporated into the project,
including relocation of proposed parking structures to the south
side of the Stanford Shopping Center and reduction of the project
to construction of 80,000 sq. ft. of commercial space which will
further reduce the project's contribution to the identified
cumulative land use impact. However, the Council recognizes that
the cumulative effect of changes to the existing character of the
Sand Hill corridor resulting from approval of the Stanford West
Apartments, Stanford West Senior Housing and Sand Hill Road
Extension and Related Roadway Improvements projects concurrently
with the project are significant.
4.2 VISUAL QUALITY/LIGHT AND GLARE
4 .. 2-1 The proposed projects would result in major visual
changes within the Sand Bill Road corridor for viewe.r·a traveling on
Sand Hill Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(g), as modified by condition 2.g,
requires that the density and frequency of street tree planting in
the center medians and southern road edge of Sand Hill Road shall
be extended to run continuously along the Sand Hill Road Extension,
to achieve eventual canopy closure between trees.
2
97070llac 0031 S89
..--------------------------~-• • _,-
Mitigation measure 4.2-1(1) provides that the Proposed Parking
Structures shall be consolidated on the Quarry Road side of the
Shopping Center to supply the same n~~er of spaces.
The Council finds that implementation of these measures will
lessen the project's visual impacts within the Sand Hill Road
corridor to a less than significant level. The adopted measures
provide for relocation of the proposed parking structure to the
Quarry Road side of the Stanford Shopping Center, thus ~~le~aly
eliminating the visual impacts of this structure on views frcm Sand
Hill Road. This change has been voluntarily incorporated into the
project design by the applicant as discussed in Chapter 13 of the
Final EIR, and is further ir~lemented through conditions 2, 4, SA,
11, and 13 of the project conditions of approval. The amount of
new commercial development included in the project has also been
reduced to 80,000 square feet, which will result in a commensurate
reduction in the amount of parking. While some new construction
will occur within view of Sand Hill Road, this development will be
visually compatible w·i th existing development on the site and is
not of sufficient mass or proximit:y· to Sand Hill Road to cause a
significant adverse visual impact. Any remaining potential visual
impact will be further offset by landscaping along the medians and
southern edge of Sand Hill Road which will substantially screen the
development from view. The relocation of the single new parking
structure to Quarry road will also eliminate the need for
implementation of mitigation measure 4.2-l(k).
4.2-4 Proposed new project features including four-story Senior
Housing buildings1 the proposed parking structure at Quarry Road,
and various retail buildings along Arboretum Road would alter the
character of the existing setting in the vicinity of Arboretum Road
and Quarry Road, with pot.ential adverse effects on viewers there
and in the Shopping Center.
Mitigation measure 4.2-4(a) requires that design guidelines or
other mechanisms approved by the Palo Alto Architectural Review
Board should be applied to help ensure compatibility of the new
streetscape and avoid design incompatibilities among prominently
placed proposed retail buildings on Arboretum Road.
~tigation measure 4.2-4(d) provides that existing landscaping
removed for the widening of Quarry Road will be replaced with
plantings of trees and shrubs of sufficient density and height to
screen both the Hoover Pavilion parking lot and adjacent substation
from casual view of travelers on Quarry Road.
Conditions 4 and 5 of the project conditions approval iropose
further design requirements, including further review by the City's
Architectural Review Board to reduce the visual length and
potential monolithic quality. These conditions have been adopted
in place of mitigation measures 4.2-4(b) and 4.2-4(c).
Condition 4 requires that the new parking structure shall be
limited to a maximum height of 24 feet 10 inches to the top of the
railing, to accommodate approximately 1535 cars. The existing
3
• •
parking structure at the corner of Quarry Road and Arboretum rtoad
will remain.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's visual impacts on the Arboretum Road/Quarry Road area
to a less than significant level. While the project will result in
additional development in this area and addition of a large parking
structure, these project elements are not incompatible with
existing development in the area. Appropriate landscaping will be
utilized to soften and screen views. The adopted mitigation
measures will ensure that available architectural techniques are
utilized to minimize visual impacts and achieve overall
compatibility between new construction and existing development in
the area.
4. 2-8 Visual disturbance from construction of the proposed
projects could have temporary adverse visual Lmpacts.
Mitigation measure 4.2-8 requires that on-site staging and
storage of construction equipment and materials should be minimized
to reduce visual disturbance during construction. Equipment and
material storage that does occur on-site should be visually
screened. Graded areas should be watered regularly to minimize
fugitive dust. Construction should be staged and scheduled to
minimize the duration of disturbance in each affected viewshed.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the adverse visual impact of project construction, but
will not reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The
adopted mitigation measure will limit the duration and visibility
of construction equipment and grading activities on the site, but
will not eliminate the significant visual impact necessarily
associated with major construction activities on the site. This
impact therefore remains significant.
4.2-9 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumulative
development in the Sand Hill Road Corridor, could adversely affect
the visual character of the corridor for viewers traveling on Sand
Bill Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-9 recommends that mitigation measures
4.2-l(a-1) be implemented for all the Sand Hill Road Corridor
Projects. ·
The project specific mitigation measures recommended in 4.2-9
for the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion have been adopted or
effectively implemented by changes in the proposed project. The
Council finds that adoption of these changes and mitigation
measures will lessen the project's contribution to cumulative
visual impacts to the Sand Hill corridor to a less than significant
level.
The additional project-specific mitigation measures
recommended in mitigation measure 4.2-9 have been adopted,
partially adopted, or rejected as stated in the findinss for the
4
97070llac 0031 ~89
• •
Stanford West Apartments, Stanford West Senior Housing, and Sand
Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements projects. To
the extent these measures have been adopted, they collectively will
reduce but not eliminate the significant adverse cumulative visual
impacts of the Sand Hill Corridor projects. This cumulative impact
therefore remains significant.
The Council recognizes that future development, to the extent
allowed in the Sand Hill Corridor, will continue to add to the
significant cumulative visual impacts associated with the approved
projects.
4.2-12 The combined visual effect of proposed projects could
adversely alter views within the El Camino Real viewshed.
Mitigation measure 4. 2 -12
mitigation measures 4.2-6(a-c).
requires implementation of
Mitigation measure 4.2 ... 6(a} requires the applicant to prepare
and implement design guidelines or controls for development of the
retail structure at Quarry Road and El Camino Real to ensure
compatibility with the area, subject to approval by the Palo ALto
Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission. An
alternative, which the Council has rejected, provides that the
applicant may remove this structure from the site plan, relocating
the scr.J.are footage to other portions of the Shopping Center if
feasible.
Mitigation measure 4.2-6(b) requires the intersection of
Quarry Road and El Camino Real to be redesigned to improve overall
visual quality and pedestrian operations, including the following
specific changes: (a) reduce the width and number of proposed lanes
of El Camino Real; (b) include a minimum 10-foot wide landscaped
median and pedestrian refuge area in the center median of El Camino
Real. ··
Mitigation measure 4.2-6(c) provides that if mitigation
measures 4.2-1{1), 4.2-S(b) and 4.2-6(b) are all adopted, the
applicant shall be required to conduct a detailed study of traffic
progression and traffic signal coordination on El C~nino Road ·and
prepare a signal coordinaticn plan. The plan shall encompass
signalized intersections on El Camino Real from Embarcadero Road to
the proposed Sand Hill Road extension and must demonstrate that
northbound left-turn queues at both the Quarry/El Camino Real and
Sand Hill Road/El Camino Real intersection will not obstruct
northbound through lanes.
Mitigation measure 4. 2-6 (d) requires that large evergreen
shrubs or evergreen trees be incorporated in the final landscape
plan along the north edge of Quarry.Road and other areas near the
corner of El Camino Re:il, in order to maintain some visual
screening of the parking lot areas from the new intersection during
winter months.
5
970702 lac 003l!l89
• •
These measures will be implemented through the conditions of
approval of the SHRE/RRI project and Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion project as appropriate. The Council finds that adoption
of these u~tigation measures will lessen the project's contribution
to cumulative visual impacts on the El Camino Real viewshed to a
less than significant level and will also lessen the combined
cumulative effect of the project and the SHRE/RRI project to a less
than significant level. These measures provide for modifications
to the proposed projects to diminish the extent of visual changes
in the affected project area and for further design review and
improvement to ensure compatibility with the existing visual
character of the area. Mdtigation measure 4.2-6(c) is designed to
offset any adverse traffic impacts which w.ill result from
implementation of these measures. With respect to mitigation
measure 4 .. 2-6 (a} , the Planning Commission considered the
alternative of elirrd.nating the proposed retail building near Quarry
Road and Bl Camino and recommended against this alternative. The
Council also finds that relocation of this building is unnecessary
and would defeat one cf the design objectives of the Shopping
Center expansion plans, specifically to provide an improved
transition from the central shopping area of the Stanford Shopping
Center to El Camino Real and adjoining portions of the Cityo The
project conditions of approval implement the alternate form of
mitigation proposed in mitigation measure 4.2-6(a) ~ The Council
finds that this measure will n1itigate the adverse impact associated
with the original design of the outlying building to a less than
significant level.
4 • 2 .. ~3 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumula ti v'e
development, could generate light and glare from buildings and
roadway• that could have adverse effects on nearby residents and
on-coaing drivers along Sand Hill Road.
~tigaticn measure 4.2-13 provides that interior and exterior
light sources associated with all of the approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects shall be shielded or directed in such a manner as
to prevent visibility of the light sources and to eliminate light
spillover beyond the perimeter of the proposed project. Specific
measures recommended in accordance with section 18.64.030 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code include the following:
(a) Exterior light fixtures on the housing buildings should
be mounted no higher than 15 feet at the rear of the
buildings.
(b) Lighting of the building exterior and parking lot should
be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for
its purpose.
(c) Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated
signs, should be avoided.
{d) Timing devices should be considered for exterior and
interior lights in order to minimize light glare at night
without jeopardizing security.
6
• •
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the project's contribution to potential cumulative light and glare
impacts to insignificance. The adopted mitigation measure will
have the effect of el~inating substantial spillover of light from
the project site and will therefore reduce any potential cumulative
impact to insignificance. This measure has also been incorporated
into the conditions of approval for other approved Sand Hill
Corridor development projects and will therefore eliminate any
potential significa.'lt cumulative effect by confining the impacts of
each project to its own location.
4.3-l Implementation of the proposed projects would result in
damaging effects on iapcrtant historic and/or prehistoric
archaeological resources ..
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(g) provides that if previously
unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction,
work shall cease in the imrr.ediate area until qu.alified
archaeologists assess the significance of the resources and make
mitigation recommendations (e.g.~ manual excavation of t.he
immediate area), if warranted.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(h) req~ires the applicant and
contractors to comply with the requirements of Section 7050.5(b) of
the California Health and Safety Code if Native Jl_rnerican burials or
other possible Native American human remains are located during
construction. This code section requires that a Native American
Most Likely Descendant: (determined in. consultation with the Native
American Heritage Commission) be notified within 24 hours and
appropriate provisions made for appropriate reburial. This and
related sections of the Public Resources Code also provide that
remains shall be protected from further construction work or
vandalism.
Mitigation measure 4.3 .. l.(k) provides that project construction
activities shall be subject to archaeological monitoring where
ground disturbance will exceed 24 inches below existing grade.
Monitoring may be conducted on an intermittent basis only where,o in
the opinion of the applicant's archaeologist and the City's
archaeologist, soils are culturally sterile. Construction
personn-el shall be required to contact the applicant's
archaeologist in the event that suspected cultural resources are
uncovered in the absence of a monitor.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the project • s potential impact on archaeological
resources to a less than signific~nt J.evel. No significant
archaeological resources are known to exist on the project site nor
is there a high probability of encountering any such resources
given the distance from San Francisquito Creek and developed nature
of the site. The EIR nevertheless concluded that potentially
significant impacts could occur if important archaeological
resources were unexpectedly encountered on the site. The adopted
7
970702lac: 0031589
• •
mitigation measures provide for monitoring of construction
activities to ensure that any important archaeological resources
encountered will be identified, Pl"Otected and removed and preserved
for furt.her study in accordance with accepted scientific standards,
ensuring no loss of scientific or historical value of the
resources. The adopted measures also ensure that proper respect
will be afforded any burials and any ~ther culturally important
Native American remnants which might oe impacted by the project.
4.3-6 The proposed projects, in conjunction with other
cumulative development projects in the San Pra.neiequito Creek
drainage, could result in damage or destruction of t.portant
prehistoric and historic cultural resources.
Mitigation measure 4.3-6 recommends that all planning
jurisdictions within the San Francisquito Creek drainage implement
cultural resource testing and data recovery measures, similar to
those described in mitigation measure 4.3-1 for projects involving
development of sensitive cultural resource sites.
The Council has adopted the recommended project-specific
mitigation measures for Stanford Shopping Center Expansior~ project
and all other approved Sand Hill Corrido~ projects. The Council
finds that adoption of these mitigation measures will lessen the
project's potential contribution to the identified cu.-nulative
impacts to a less than significant level and will also lessen the
cumulative impact of the Sand Hill Corridor projects collectively
to a less than significant level.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be considered in conjunction with
any future projects within the City. With respect to cumulative
impacts from future development projects outside of the City, the
Council finds that implementation of the recommended measures is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies
and that the agencies can and should implement such measures to the
excent feasible. Because the nature and extent of potential
cumulative impact from future projects on archaeological resources
is presently speculative and unknown, and because the extent to
which other agencies can and will implement the recommended
measures is presently unknown, the Council cannot determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen or avoid potential cumulative visual impacts. The
Council therefore finds that this cumulative impact remains
potentially significant despite the adoption of available
mitigation measures by the City.
8
970702lac 0031 '89
• •
t.4 TBARSPQRTATIQR
4.4-7 Development of the proposed projects could degrade the
level of service of study area intersections, and contribute to
increased intersection delay.
The EIR concluded that changes and increases in traffic
patterns resulting from the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects
collectively will result in significant adverse changes in traffic
conditions at a total of seven area intersections, specifically:
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
Junipero Serra Blvd./Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
Middlefield Road/Willow Road
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
The approved Stanford Shopping Center EA~ansion project alone~
however, would have significant adverse impacts on traffic levels
at only four area intersections, specifically:
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
Middlefield Road/Willow Road
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
The conditions of approval nevertheless require the applicant
to contribute to all of the following mitigation measures.
~xboretum Road/Galvez Street: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(a) requires
the applicant to install a traffic signal or other appropriate
traffic control device(s) at the intersection of Arboretum
Road/Galvez Street, and pay the full cost of these improvements.
This measure shall be implemented when the interse''"'tion satisfies
appropriate signal warrants as determined by the Chief
Transportation Official. In the event that the City and the
applicant determine that use of a traffic circle or "roundaboutR
will provide for the same or better LOS and safety as a traffic
signal, the traffic circle may be constructed at the applicant's
expense instead of a traffic signals or other traditional traffic
control device(s).
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road: Mitigation measure 4 .4-"7 (b)
requires the applicant to contribute a fair share of the costs of
the following planned improvements:
Add a southbound right turn lane;
Add a westbound right turn lane;
Add a northbound right turn lane; and
Extend the westbound left turn lane by 100 feet.
9
970702 Jac 0031 '89
• •
These measures should be implemented when the intersection
approaches I~S F, as evaluated through periodic monitoring to be
carried out by the applicant on behalf the City.
Sarul Hill Rgad/Santa Cruz Avenue: Mitigation measure 4. 4·7 (c)
requires the applicant to pay a fair share of the costs of
following Lmprovements to the following improvements to the Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection:
Widen Sand Hill Road to add second eastbound left turn
lane;
Widen Sand Hill Road to add second westbound left turn
lane;
Modify signal pha.sing;
Install an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound
approach of Santa Cruz Avenue; and
Provide dual left turn lanes on both the northbound and
southbound Santa Cruz Avenue approaches.
The applicant shall also pay the costs of installing an
exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Santa Cruz
Avenue and providing dual left turn lanes on both the northbound
and southbound Santa Cruz Avenue approaches.
Conditions of approval l.c and 12 for the SHRE/RRI project, as
adopted by condition of approval 2.c for this project, provide that
the applicant shall advance funds to pay the full costs of these
improvements if the City of Menlo Park and/or the County of San
Mateo, with respect to any improvements within that jurisdiction,
enters into an agreement to reimburse the applicant for costs in
excess of its fair share. If no reimbursement agreement is
adopted, the applicant shall pay its fair share (subject to
limitations based on engineering cost estimates) based on traffic
attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor projects. Implementation of
this mitigation measure will not occur until approvals are obtained
from the City of Menlo Park and/or the County of San Mateq,· as
applicable.
Junipero Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa ~:ruz Avenue: Mitigation
measure 4.4-7(d) requires the applicant to pay a fair share of the
costs of the following improvements to the Junipero Serra
Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection mandated by
the Menlo Park General Plan or recommended in the EIR:
Widen northbound approach to add exclusive rig.ht turn
lane.
Install an additional southbound left-turn lane.
Conditions of approval l.c and 12 for the SHRE/RRI project, as
adopted by condition of approval 2.c for this project, provide that
10
91070l W: 003 Ul9
• •
the applicant shall advance funds to pay the full costs of these
improvements if the City of Menlo Park and/or the County of San
Mateo, as applicable, enters into an agreement to reimburse the
applicant for costs in excess of its fair share. If no
reimbursement agreement is adopted, the applicant shall pay its
fair share (subject to limitations based on engineering cost
estimates} based on traffic attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor
projects. ~lamentation of this mitigation measure will not occur
until approvals are obtained from. the City of Menlo Park and/or the
County of San Mateo, as applicable.
Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road: Mitigation measure 4~4~7(e), as
modified by Condition 2.d of the conditions of approval, requires
the applicant to pay its fair share of the following improvements
to the Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road mandated by the City of Menlo
Park general plan or recommended in the E!R, when the City of Menlo
Park determines to proceed with these improvements.
Add a second soutl'i..bound left turning lane.
Restripe eastbound approach.
Modify signal phasing.
Including a leading left turn phase in the signal phasing
for the north and south directions.
The timing of these improvements will be determined by the
City of Menlo Park, through periodic monitoring and/or through
subse~Jent enviro~~ental impact analysis and documentation.
Condition 2. d partially implements this mitigation measure by
requiring that the applicant shall either make signal timing
improvements sufficient to return traffic levels of service at this
intersection to level of service D, or contribute its fair share of
the costs to construct the recommended intersection improvements.
This obligation would not be triggered until c1..i'rrent level of
sep;ice falls to E or worse.
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Junipero Serra Blvd./Alpine
&Q.gg: Mitigation measure 4.4-7 (h) provides that the appl~cant
shall conduct an operational analysis of the Sand Hill Road/Santa
Cruz Avenue and ~pine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersections
to identify the appropriate combination of roadway and traffic
signal improvements necessary to improve operation to LOS D during
peak hours, if feasible.
The EIR also recommends the following mitigation measures be
implemented to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts within the City
of Menlo Park, but does not provide for direct participation by the
applicant in implementation of these mitigation measures.
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(f)
recommends that the following improvements to the El Camino
Real/Ravenswood Avenue intersection be completed as prescribed in
the City of Menlo Park's general plan:
11
970702 Sac 0031 S89
• •
Widen northbound approach to add third northbound through
lane.
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane.
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
El CaminQ R§al/Valpa~1so Avenue/Glenwood Avenue: Mitigation
measure 4.4-7(g) rec~ends that the following improvements to the
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue intersection be
completed as prescribed in the City of Menlo Park's general plan:
Res tripe northbound approach to add third northbound
through lane.
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane,
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
Final design shall Include provisions for bicycle
traffic.
In ?.ddition, the EIR recommends that signal phasing at this
intersection be modifie~ to include Bplit phasing in the east/west
direction and a leading left turn phase in the north/s.;,uth
direction.
The Council finds that these adopted mitigation measures, if
implemented, will lessen the project's impacts on traffic at the
four significantly affected intersections to a less than
significant level, and will also substantially lessen the impact of
the project's contribution to cumulative traffic at other
intersections significantly affected by the Sand Hill Corridor
projects collectively. Mitigation measures 4.4-?(a)-(e) require
the applicant to pay all or a fair share of the costs of physical
improvements necessary to enable each of these affected
intersections to serve anticipated cumulative traffic demands at
acceptable levels of se~~ice. Mitigation measure 4.4-7{h) also
provides for identification of appropriate additional intersection
improvements should t.he City of Menlo Park elect to achieve a
higher level of service and the Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
and Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersections. The
Council recognizes that authority to approve the identified
mitigation measures at three of t.he f::>ur intersections
significantly affected by the project is vested in public agencies
other than the City, specifically the City of Menlo Park (Sand Hill
Road widening and related improvements in Menlo Park, mitigation
measure 4.4-7(c), Sand Hill Road/Santa C~uz Avenue and mitigation
measure 4.4-?(e), Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road); County of Santa
Clara (mitigation measure 4.4-7(a}, Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
12
97070llac 0031589
• •
intersection); the and County of San Mateo (mitigation measure
4.4~7(c), Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection).
Responsibility and authority for implementing the recoamended
mitigation measures at the additional intersection• cumulatively
impacted by the project is also vested in other public agencies,
specifically the City of Menlo Park (mitigation measures 4.4·7(f),
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue, and 4.4-7(g}, El camino
Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue) and 4 ~ 4 · 7 (d), Junipero
Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue) -The Council finds
that the identified mitigation measures can and should be approved
and implemented by these agencies. However, the Council also
recognizes that in the event that one or more of the recommended
mitigation measures are not approved or implemented by the
appropriate responsible agencies, the project will result in
significant adverse impacts on the Arboretum Road/Galvez St~eet,
Middlefield Road/Willow Road and/or Sand Hi.ll Road/Santa Cruz
Avenue intersection(s}f and will contribute to sionificant irnoacts
at other· intersect.ions cumulati· .. tely affected b ... y the Sand·· Hill
corridor projects. Because it cannot presently be determined if or
when the appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented by the
respective responsible agencies, these impacts are considered by
the Council to be potentially significant.
4 .4·8 Construction activities could lead to temporary
disruption of transportation system operation, as well •• to
permanent damage to elements of the system such as pavement and
bridges.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(a) requires the applicant to provide
adequate off-street parking for all construction-related vehicles
throughout the construction period. If adequate parking cannot be
provided on the construction sites, a satellite parking area shall
be designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer
construction workers to the job sites.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(b) provides that construction
activities related to the project are prohibited from substantially
limiting pedestrian access (e.g, by blocking pedestrian routes},
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto and/or Caltrans.
Any approval shall require submittal and approval of speci"fic
construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to
a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4-4.8(c) provides that the applicant shall
be prohibited from limiting bicycle access (e.g. by blocking or
restricting existing routes) while constructing the project,
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto and/or Caltrans
or the City of Menlo Park (depending upon the jurisdiction of the
requested action) . Any approval will require submittal and
approval of specific construction management plans to mitigate the
specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4.4-8 (d) provides that the appliC<"1.nt shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of cor .. struction
13
970702 lac 0031.589
• •
material deliveries from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 4 p.m. to 6
p.m. on weekdays.
~tigation measure 4.4-S(e) provides that the applicant shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(f) requires that all
construction-related equipment and materials shall be delivered and
removed on truck routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto and
Menlo Park. Heavy construction vehicles shall be prohibited from
accessing the sites from other routes.
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(g) requires the applicant to repair
any structural damage to public roadways f returning any damaged
sections to original structural condition. The effectiveness of
this measure shall be guaranteed by requiring surveys of road
conditions before and after construction.
Mitigation measure 4. 4-8 (h) prohibits the applicant from
limiting access to public transit (e.g. by relocating ~r
restricting access to bus stops or transfer facilities), and from
limiting movement of public transit vehicles, without prior
approval from the Santa Clara Transit Agency or other appropriate
jurisdiction. Any approval will require submittal of specific
construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to
a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(I) provides that in lieu of
mitigation measures 4.4-S(a} through (h), the project applicant may
prepare detailed construction impact mitigation plans for approval
by the City of Palo Alto Chief Transportation Official and City of
Menlo Park Transportation Manager prior to commencing any
construction activities with potential transportation impacts in
their respective jurisdictions. The plan must address all aspects
of construction traffic mana.gement necessary to eliminate or reduce
transportation impacts to acceptable levels.
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(j) requires the applicant to prepare
and comply with a parking management plan approved by the Chief
Transportation Official. The plan may not simply transfer the
impact of temporary parking loss to adjacent surface streets,
commercial districts, or residential neighborhoods, and must
address specific measures identified in the EIR.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential construction phase traffic and
transportation impacts to a less than significant level. These
measures provide for comprehensive planning for construction
traffic and establish standards, criteria and implementing measures
which will ensure that siqnificant interference with vehicle~
bicycle, pedestrian and emergency vehicle access is avoided during
all phases of construction. The adopted mitigation measures also
require the applicant to offset parking demand created by loss of
14
9707021ac0031589
• •
abopping center parking spaces during construction phases by means
which will not impact other parking facilities in the area.
t. 5 AII.JilliltlD
t.5·1 Tbe ~ geoerated durtDg the construction of the p~sed
project• could be ba~ul to nearby pollutant-sensitive land uses.
Mitigation measure 4.5-1 requires the applicant to implement
a COD8truetion pha•e program which includes the following measures
to reduce generation of particulate matter on the project site
during con•truct.ion:
Water all active construction areas at least twice a day,
or as needed to prevent visible dust plumes from blowing
oft-site.
Use tarpaulins or other effective covers for on-site
storage piles and for haul trucks on public streets.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic)
soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas during construction.
Sweep all paved access routes, parking areas, and staging
areas daily (preferably with water sweepers) .
Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if
visible amounts of soil material is carried onto public
streets.
If the working area of any construction site exceeds four
acres at any one time, implement the following additional measures:
Apply (non-toxic)
construction areas.
soil stabilizers to ·inactive
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic)
soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
Limit construction site vehicle speed to 15 mph on
unpaved areas.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.
If the working area of any construction site is located near
any sensitive receptors, implement the following measure in
addition to those listed above:
9?0702 be 0031 S89
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed
25 mph.
15
• •
The last mitigation would be applicable to the Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion site where it approaches Ronald McDonald
House and the Stanford University Medical Center.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified potential adverse construction phase impact to a
less than significant level~ Implementation of twice daily
watering has been shown to reduce construction site PM10 emissions
by at least so percent. This practice, in conjunction with the
other listed measures, will reduce PM10 emissions during
construction to less than the BAAQMD threshold of significance for
all anticipated construction activity.
4.5-2 ROG. RO~· and ~0 emissions generated by motor vehicles
and residential stationary sources associated with the proposed
projects would exceed the eo lbs/day threshold and could hinder
regional and local attainment of State ozone and PM10 standards.
Mitigatio:J. measure 4.5-.2 (a} requires the City to implement
mitigation measure 4.4-2(a), which provides final design for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Stanford West
Apartments a~d Se~ior Housing sites shall be reviewed to ensure ~he
circulation system will fucctior:, as a part of .regional or
inter-city bicycle and pedestrian connections, thereby promoting
increased use of bicycles or pedestrian travel by area residents.
The Council has re~Jired that the plans for those projects
inco1~orate this mitigation measure.
Mitigation measure 4.5-2 (b) re~uires the City to implement
mitigation measure 4.4-2(d), which requ1.res the applicant to
provide a bicycle and pedestrian actuated crossing phase of El
Camino Real north of the proposed Sand Hill Road intersection,
promoting increased bicycles or pedestrian accessibility of the
shopping center:.
The EIR concludes that air pollution emis'sions from the
project~ resulting prirrarily from increased project-related vehicle
traffic --would be below the thresholds of significance for NOx,
~0 and ROG emissions recognized by the BAAQMD and utilized in the
EIR. Due to continuing changes in automotive technology, further
reductions are expected by the year 2010. The project therefore
will not have a significant adverse effect on air quality. The EIR
also concluded, however, that the project would contribute to
significant air quality impacts from the Sand Hill Corridor
projects collectively. The Council finds that this cumulative air
quality impact is significant, despite adoption of the above
identified mitigation measures.
4. 5-4 CUmulative daily traffic along major roadwali'S in the
project and study areas would emit more NOx, and Plfo with the
implementation of the Sand Hill Road Projects, but emissions of ROG
would decrease ..
The EIR found that neither the Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion nor any of the other Sand Hill Corridor projects will
16
97070llac 0031519
• •
individually produce significant air quality ~cts. However, the
three Sand Hill Corridor development projects collectively will
result in a significant cumulative increase of NOx and P~0 emissions of in the project area. The EIR did not identify any
mitigation measures for this area-wide cumulative impact.
Cumulative traffic-related air pollution emissions are regulated
through means beyond the City's jurisdiction and control.
Individual vehicle emissions and automotive fuels are subject to
regulation only by state or federal government, Regional traffic
levels are also heavily influenced by past and future planning and
land use decisions over which the City has no control. The Council
therefore finds that no additional feasible mitigation measures are
presently available to the City to substantially lessen this
cumulative impact due to increases in regional traffic, and because
the legal authority and responsibility, if any, for feasible
mitigation measures is vested in other agencies beyond the City•s
control. The identified cu.111ulative impact is significant.
L.i_. NOISE
4 .. 6-1 The noise generated during the construction of the
proposed projects could be disruptive to nearby noise~·aenait:lve
land uses.
Mitigation measure 4.6-l{a} provides that construccion
activities will be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and if weekend work is necessary, to the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday~ and to the hours of
10:00 a.m. to 6=00 p.m. on Sunday.
Miti.gation nteasure 4. 6-l {b) provides that construction
equipment shall be outfitted and maintained with noise reduction
devices (i~e., mufflers, enclosures for stationary equipw~nt, etc.)
to obtain at least an average 10 dBA reduction shown feasible in
Table 4 .. 6-5.
Mitigation measure 4.6-1{c} provides that stationary noise
sources (e.g., compressors, concrete rndxers, etc.} shall be located
on portions of the sites furthest away from residential and other
noise-sensitive areas, and that acoustic shielding shall be used
with such equipment.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will
substantially lessen construction phase noise impacts of the
project, but will not reduce these impacts to less than significant
levels. The adopted measures will reduce noise generated by
construction activities and will eliminate construction noise
during normal sleeping hours. However, significant noise impacts
will remain due to inherent noise generated by large scale
construction activity and heavy equipment.
17
970702 I~ 0031 589
• •
4.6-3 Traffic generated by the proposed projects and other
cumulative developments and the traffic accommodated by the
propoaed roadway improvements would impact exiating and pr~aed
residential and other sensitive land uses adjacent to roadwaya in
the project and study areas.
Mitigation measure 4.6-3(b) requires the applicant to
construct a landscaped buffer strip with at least a 3-footMhigh
be~ along Sand Hill Road between Stanford Avenue and Qak Avenue in
conjunction with ~lementation of the Sand Hill Road widening and
realignment between Santa Cruz and Oak Avenues.
Mitigation measure 4. 6-3 (c) requires _the applicant to
construct a soundwall 6 feet high or higher between Santa Cruz
Avenue and Stanford Avenue in conjunction with implementation of
the Sand Hill Road widening to reduce noise from traffic increases
at the nearby intersection.
Mitigation measure 4~6-3(d)J as modified by Condition 2.e of
the project conditions of approval, re·quires the applicant to
monitor noise increases in residences in the designated areas alo~g
Sand Hill Road where the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects n~y be
responsible for more than SO% of potential increases in
traffic-related noise. If noise increases are detected# the
applicant shall be responsible for the costs of measures such as
additional insulation, double-glazed windows, or individual
sound"Yialls as determined necessary by acoustic study to return
interior noise levels in these residences to pre-project levels or
to 45 dBa. Residents may also contribute any further funds
necessary to further reduce interior noise levels to acceptable
levels~
The Council finds that these mitigation measures, if
implemented, will substantially lessen significant cumulative
traffic-related noise impacts along the Sand Hill Road corridor
although these measures will not necessarily reduce cumulative
noise impacts to a less than significant level for every residence
affected by the project. Mitigation measure 4.6-3(d) provides for
a fair share contribution by the applicant to the costs of
physically upgrading affected residences with noise mitigat:ion
measures. Mitigation measures 4.6-3(b) and 4.6-3(c) provide for
construction of physical barriers to reduce noise to acceptable
levels at protected residences. The adopted mitigation measure
4.3-6(d) will impose responsibility for necessary monitoring of
actual noise increa.ses on the applicant and also imposes
responsibility on the applicant to pay a share of actual mitigation
costs in proportion to the applicant's responsibility for these
impacts where the Sand Hill Corridor projects are the predominant
cause of cumulative traffic-related noise impacts. The Council
does not believe that the applicant can or equitably should be held
responsible for more than a fair share of the costs of mitigating
these potential cumulative noise impacts. Revisions made by the
City to mitigation measure 4.3-6(d) are intended to strengthen the
measure by fixing responsibility for noise monitoring on the
applicant, and to also amend the measure to provide that the
18
9707021ac 0031589
• •
applicant shall be financially responsible only for a fair share of
the costs of implementing the mitigation measure. The Council
recognizes that mitigation measure 4.6·3(d), as adopted, will not
result in lessening of cumulative noise impacts at locations at
which less than 50% of the cumulative traffic-related noise
increase is attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor projects. The
Council also recognizes that since implementation of mitigation
measure 4.6-3(d) also requires the cooperation of affected
homeowners, the physical improvements necessary to reduce noise
levels at some affected residences to acceptable levels may not be
constructed by choice of the owner. The Council therefore
recognizes that notwithstanding adoption of the identified
mitigation measures, cumulative traffic-related noise impacts may
remain significant for some residences affected by the projects.
With respect to mitigation measures 4.6-3(b) and 4.6-3(c},
which will mitigate noise impacts on certain residences in Menlo
Park, the Council further recognizes that although the conditions
of approval require the applicant to accept responsibility for
implementation of these mitigation measures, approval for
implementation of these measures must be obtained from the City of
Menlo Park. The Council finds that impleme:lltation of these
mitigation measures can and should be approved by the City of Menlo
Park. The Council also recognizes1 however, that in the event that
approval for implementation of these measures is not obtained from
Menlo Park, affected residences in Menlo Park would e-A-perience
significant cumulative traffic-related noise impacts due to
increased cumulative traffic on Sand Hill Road.
4o7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.7-1 Implementation of the proposed projects would result in
loss of trees and associated wildlife habitat.
Mitigation measure 4.7-l(a) requires that Native tree's removed
for the projects shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 on a per acre
basis by the same species from locally collected stock, and
provides for additional replanting if survival rates fall below SO
percent.
Mitigation measure 4.7-l(b) requires that non-native landscape
trees removed for the projects be replaced en a two-to-one basis.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-1 (c) provides that the City shall
contract with an independent arborist to (a) review plans to
provide for maximum retention of trees and necessary additional
tree protection measures; b) monitor project construction ; and c)
recommend changes in the tree removal plan as necessary during
construction.
Mitigation measure 4.7-l{e) requires that all trees adjacent
to project construction areas which are not removed will be avoided
and protected according to specified procedures incorporated into
all construction and/or demolition contracts.
19
910102 Jac0031.589
• •
The Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project will not result
in loss of any native trees. The extensive removal of existing
landscape trees is nevertheless considered a significant impact.
The Council finds that adoption of the recommended mitigation
measures will lessen the project's long and intermediate term
impacts on trees to less than significant levels, and will
substantially lessen but will not avoid significant adverse short
te~ impacts (0-10 years). The adopted measures for retention and
protection of existing trees to the extent possible during project
construction and replacement of all trees removed as a result of
the project at a greater than 1-1 ratio. These mitigation measures
will therefore result in replacement of all trees lost. However,
because it will take a number of years before replacement trees
reach a level of rraaturity similar to those being removed, the
project will result in a significant short-term impact on the
quality of trees and related habitat value in the project area .
4 .. 7-8 Ongoing operation of the proposed projects could
adversely affect aquatic life, including sensitive animal species,
in San Prancisquito Creek, by increasing runoff and non-point
source urban pollutant loads.
Mitigation measure 4.7-S(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a)-(c}, discussed below.
Mitigation measure 4.7-S(h) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-4(a) and (b) I discussed below.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the project's potential runoff and pollution impact on
aquatic life in San Francisquito Creek to a less than significant
level. The adopted mitigation measures require preparation and
implementation of construction phase and post-construction storm
water runoff management plans which will incorporate r~cognized
best management practices to minimize siltation and runoff of
contaminants from the project areas. Residual silt ···and cuntaminant
runoff reaching San Francisquito Creek, if any, will not constitute
a sufficient addition to loads from existing development in the
watershed to result in any measurable further deterioration of
water quality conditions. ·
4.7-10 ~lamentation of the proposed projects, in conjunction
with other proposed projects in the area would result in
incremental loss of trees and associated wildlife habitat.
Mitigation measure 4.7-10(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7·1(a, b, c, and e) I discussed above, for all
Sand Hill Corridor projects.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-10 (c) recommends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project area, implement their respective tree
protection and preservation ordinances. For those jurisdictions
without such an ordinance, measures similar to those presented in
mitigation measure 4.7-1 should be implemented on a
project-by-project basis.
20
• •
The conditions of approval for the project incorporate each of
the project·specific mitigation measures recommended in mitigation
measure 4. 7-10 \a). The applicable recommended project-specific
mitigation measures have also been adopted in the conditions of
approval for each of the Sand Hill Corridor projects approved
concurrently with the project. The Council finds that adoption of
these project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the identified cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level. Adoption and implementation of these measures
in conjunction with the other Sand Hill Corridor projects will
reduce the combined cumulative impact of these projects to a less
than significant level. These measures generally provide for full
replacement of trees lost due to implementation of the project,
thus eliminating any significant cumulative impact.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
any future projects within the City or annexed to the City. With
respect to curnulat.ive impacts from future development projects
outside of the City, the Coun2il finds that implementation of t·he
recomnended measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility
of ether public agencies and that the agencies can and. should
implement such measures to the extent feasible. Because the nature
and extent of potential cumulative loss of trees and related
habitat from future projects is presently entirely speculative and
unknown, and because the extent to which other agencies can and
will implement the recommended measures is presently unknown~ the
Council cannot determine at this time the extent to which the
recommended mea.sures will be implemented or the extent to which
these measures! if implemented, will lessen or avoid potential
cumulative visual impacts. The Council therefore finds that this
cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite the
adoption of available mitigation measures by the City.
'.•
4.7-l.S Ongoing operation of the proposed projects, in
conjunction ~th similar projects within the same watershed, could
cause cumulative adverse affects on aquatic life, including
sensitive animal species, in San Praneiaqu:l.to Creek, by increasing
runoff and non-point source urban pollutant loads.
Mitigation measure 4.7-15
mitigation measures 4.9~7(a)-(c)
projects.
requires implementation of
for all Sand Hill Corridor
The conditions of approval for the project incorporate each of
the applicable project-specific mitigation measures recommended in
mitigation measures 4.9~7(a)-{c). The Council has also adopted the
recommended project-specific mitigation measures as conditions of
approval for the other Sand Hill Corridor projects approved
concurrently with the project. The Council finds that adoption of
these project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the identified cumulative impacts to a less than
significant level. Adoption and ~lementation of these mitigation
21
910102 lac 0031 $89
• •
measures in conjunction with the other Sand Hill Corridor projects
will also reduce the combined cumulative impact of the projects to
a less than significant level. The adopted mitigation measures
generally provide for preparation and compliance with detailed
Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plans which will include specific
measures to prevent excessive sediment or pollution runoff which
might result in significant adverse effects on aquatic life or
habitat values in San Francisquito Creek.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
any future projects within the City or ~mexed to the City. With
respect to cumulative impacts fr~~ future development beyond the
City's boundaries, jurisdiction and responsibility for adoption of
recommended measures is vested in other public agencies. The
Council finds that these agencies can and should implement these
measures. Because the nature and extent of the potential
cumulative impact from future projects is presently speculative and
unknown, and because the extent to which other agencies can and
wi 11 implement the recomrnended mit. igat ion measures is presently
unknown, the Council cannot dete1'1nine at this time the extent to
which the recommended measures will be implerr;ented or the extent to
which these measures, if implemented, will lessen or avoid
potential cumulative impact resulting from increased runoff of
sediment and pollutants i.nto San Francisquito Creek. The Council
therefore finds that this cumulative impact remains potentially
significant despite the adoption of available mitigation measures
by the City.
4.8 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SBI~CITY
4. 8-1 Expansive or weak soil a could damage foundations by
providing inadequate support.
Mitigation measure 4.8-l(a) requires site specific soil
suitability analysis be conducted and soil stabilization procedures
and foundation design criteria be adopted in accordance with
engineering criteria where the existence of expansive ·and
compressible soil conditions is known or suspected.
Mitigation measure 4. 8-l. (b) requires participation by the
project1 S registered soil engineer as deemed necessary to oversee,
verify, and report on soil engineering procedures and results.
The EIR concludes that soil conditions encountered during
construction could,. but will not necessarily, create a risk of
inadequate support for new construction associated with the
project. The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation
measures will lessen the potential impact of potentially expansive
or weak soils to a less than significant level. These measures
implement standard engineering procedures and safeguards for
ensuring safe construction of new structures.
22
970702 lac 0031589
• •
4.8-2 The Stanford Sand Bill Road Corridor Projects area is
subject to very strong seismically induced groundahaking whleh
could threaten life and damage property.
Mitigation measure 4.8·2(&) requires documented site-specific
seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated in the design of
foundations and structures of the project which meet the min~
seismic-resistant design standards of CUBC Seismic Zone 4.
Addi.tional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design
criteria will be incorporated in the project where recommended by
qualified experts. Roads, foundations and underground utilities in
fill or alluvium shall be designed to accommodate settlement or
compaction produced by seismic forces.
Mitigation measure 4.8-2(b) requires on-site participation by
th€ project's registered geological or geotechnical engineering
consultant, as deemed appropriate, to oversee! verify, and report
on seismic-restraint procedures and results.
Mitigation measure 4.8-2(c) requires that an engineering
geologist be contracted for third party review of all geologic!
soils and engineering reports prepared for the proposed projects.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the impact of exposure to seismic evev~s to ~ less than significant
level. These measures implement standard engineering procedures
and criteria for preventing major building failures and resulting
injury or loss of life from any seismic event reasonably
anticipated to occur in the project area.
4.8-4 Implementation of any combination of the projects, in
conjunction with cumulative development within San Mateo and santa
Clara counties and the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, would
increase the number of people and structux·es subject to strong
seismic groundshaking and the subsequent risk of injury, loss of
life and property damage. ·.-
Mitigation measure 4.S-4{a) recommends that documented
site-specific seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated in the
design of foundations and structures in the projects area,
including the following (1) minimum seismic-resistant design
standards shall conform to the CUBC Seismic Zone 4 Standards; {2)
additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design
criteria shall be incorporated as necessary, based on the
site-specific engineering recommendations; (3) site preparation
shall be supervised by geological or geotechnical consultants; (4)
"as built11 maps and a report shall be filed with the City, showing
details of the site geology, the location and type of
seismic-restraint facilities, and documenting satisfactory seismic
perfonnance for buildings, roads, foundations and underground
utilities.
Mitigation measure 4.8-4{b) recommends requ~r~ng on-site
oversight, verification and reporting by registered geological or
23
970702lac 0031589
• •
geotechnical engineering consultants where deemed appropriate by
the City's Chief Building Official.
The conditions of approval for the Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion project and for each of the other approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects incorporate measures equivalent to the
project-specific mitigation measures recommended in mitigation
measure 4. 8 ~ 4 (a) . The Council finds that adoption of these
project-specific measures will lessen the project's contribution to
the identified cumulative impact to a less than significant level,
and will also lessen the combined cumulative impact of the Sand
Hill Corridor projects to a less than significant level. The
adopted project-specific measures generally provide for
incorporation of adequate seismic safety measures into all new
construction as provided by mitigation measures 4.8-2(a}-(c).
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond. the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with
any future projects approved by the City. With respect to
cumulative impacts from future development outside of the City, che
Council finds that implementation of the recommended measures is
within th2 jurisdiction and responsibility of other public·agencies
and that these agencies can and should implement such measures.
Because the recommended mitigation measures rely in part upon
compliance with existing seismic safety practices and standards, it
is expected that other jurisdictions will implement the measures to
a large extent. However, because the extent of the potential
cumulative impact from future projects is presently unknown, and
because the extent to which other agencies can and will implement
the recommended mitigation measures beyond current minimum
standards is uncertain, the Council cannot fully determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, ,if implemented,
will lessen the potential cumulative impact associated with
increased development in the seismically sensitive region around
the projects. The Council therefore finds that this cumulative
impact remains potentially significant despite the adoption of
available mitigation measures by the City. ·
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-1 Grading, excavation and construction activities could
result in increased deposition of sediment and/or discharge of
pollutants in the storm drainage system and San Francisquito Creek
and adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-1(a) requires the applicant to prepare,
retain and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) which describes the site, erosion and sediment controls,
means of material storage and waste disposal, implementation of
approved local plans, post-construction control measures and
maintenance responsibilities, and non~storm water management
24
970702 lac 0031 519
• •
controlsp The plan shall implement appropriate Best Management
Practices (•BMPs•) identified in the EIR
Mitigation measure 4.9-l(b} requires that the SWPPP shall be
prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City's
Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit.
The SWPPP shall be implemented and inspected as part of the
approval process for the grading plans for each project.
Mitigation measure 4. 9 -l. (c) requires that all construction
contracts include the City's construction contract Pollution
Prevention Language as part of the project specifications.
Because the project site is already largely paved and
developed, the potential impact of the project is small. The
Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen the
project's potential sedimentation and contaminant impacts on San
Francisquito Creek to a less than significant level. The adopted
mitigation measures implement regulatory requirements and practices
demonstrated to prevent excessive or damaging runoff of sediments
and pollutants from development sites. Residual runoff of
sediments and contaminants from construction areas, if any, wi'll
not occur in sufficient quantities to significdntly degrade
existing water quality.
4.9-4 Increased impervious surface and landscaping associated
with development of the Proposed Projects could increase urban
contaminants in surface runoff potentially reducing water quality
in San Francisquito Creek.
Mitigation measure 4.9-4(a) re~uires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a) through (c) for all approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects.
Mitigation measure 4. 9-4 (b) requires that tJle SWPPP shall
include in the final project design appropriate BMPs selected by
the City, consisting either of detailed measures identified in the
EIR or equivalent measures.
Since the project site is already largely paved and
developed/ the impact is likely to be small. The Council finds
that adoption of the recornn1ended measures will in any event lessen
the project's potential impact on San Francisquito Creek to a less
than significant level. The adopted mitigation measures require
implementation of design features and operational practices which
will reduce contamination of exposed surfaces at the project site
and trap or otherwise minimize runoff of such contaminants from the
site. Residual contaminant runoff reaching San Francisquito Creek
is not expected to constitute a sufficient addition to loads from
existing development in the watershed to result in any measurable
further deterioration of water quality.
25
970102 lac .0031 !i89
---------------------------------------
• •
4.9-S Project conetruction activities in combination with other
coaatruction proj~ta in the watershed could cumulatively increase
aed~t And other construction-related pollutants in San
Pranciequito Creek and adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4. 9-5 (a} recommends that all area
jurisdictions ensure that project applicants include BMPs in
construction contracts implementing the requirements of NPDES
MUnicipal Storm Water Permit #CAS029718.
~tigation measure 4.9-S(b) recommends that applicants for all
area projects of five acres or more, be required to prepare a
detailed SWPPP under the State General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit.
Mitigation measure 4~9-S(c) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l{a) through (c) for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects.
The recommended mitigation measures or eqtlivalent measures
have been incorporated in the conditions of approval for the
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project. The Council finds that
adoption of these project-specific measures will lessen the
project's contribution. to potential cumulative sedimentation and
contaminant impacts associated with construction to a less than
significant level. Adoption of the recornmended mitigation measures
with resp2ct to future development projects within the City's
jurisdiction is beyond the scope of approvals granted for the
project; however., the Council finds that the City can and should
require implementation of the recommended measures at the time
future development projects are proposed.
With respect to implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures by jurisdictions other than the City, the Council finds
that implementation of such measures is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies and that the recommended
measures can and should be implemented by these agencies to the
extent feasible. These measures are generally consistent with
requirements imposed by state law. However, because the nature and
extent of potential area-wide cumulative impacts from fut:ure
development are presently unknown, and because the extent to which
other agencies can and will implement the recommended measures is
presently unknown, the Council cannot determine at this time the
extent to which the recommended measures will be implemented or the
extent to which these measures~ if implemented, will lessen or
avoid potential ctu:nulative effects. The Council therefore finds
that this cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite
the adoption of available mitigation measures by the Council.
26
970702 lac OOJ l 589
• •
4.9-7 Increased ~rvious surface aa•ociated with developaaot
of the Stanford Sand Bill Road Corridor Project• and areas in the
San Prancisquito Creek Watershed could ~latively increase urban
contaminants in surface runoff poteatially reduciDg water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-7(a) recommends that all local
jurisdictions ensure that future project applicants include BMPs as
part of project design in accordance with San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) requirements~
Mitigation measure 4. 9 ·7 (b) notes that it is within the
jurisdiction of the SFBRWQCB to require that comprehensive SWPPPs
and monitoring programs be implemented by all storm water
discha~gers associated with specified industrial activities, in
compliance with the Statets General Permits, and to require that
such plans shall include BMPs or e~~ally effective measures.
Mitigation measure 4.9-7(c) re~Jires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-4(a) and (b) by all approved Sand !-!ill
Corridor projects.
The conditions of approval for the project incorporate each·of
the recommended project··specific mitigation measures or equivalent
measures to mitigate identified potential cumulative contaminant
impacts to San Francisquito Creek. The Council finds that adoption
of these recommended measures will lessen the project's
contribution to the identified curr~lative impact to a less than
significant level. The recommended mitigation measures have also
been adopted in connection with approval of the other approved Sand
Hill Corridor projects, and will lessen the combined cumulative
impact of the projects to a less than significant level. Adoption
of the recommended mitigation measures for future development in
the City is beyond the scope of approvals granted for the project~
However, the Council finds that the City can and should adopt
equivalent measures for all future projects appr9ved within its
jurisdiction. '
With respect to impacts resulting from future development
outside the City, jurisdiction and responsibility for
implementation of recommended mitigation measures or equivalent
measures is vested in other public agencies. The Council finds
that these jurisdictions can and should implement such measures.
However, because the nature and extent of potential cumulative
impacts from future development is currently unknown, and the
degree to which other jurisdictions will implement recommended
mitigation measures is uncertain, the Council cannot determine at
this time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented outside the City's boundaries and also cannot determine
the extent to which these measures, if implemented, will lessen or
avoid the identified potential cumulative impact. This cumulative
impact therefore remains potentially significante
27
970702 lac 0031 S89
• •
4.10 PJJBLIC SAFETY
4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed projects could expose
construction workers to unidentified existing soil and/or
groundwater contaminants at levels which could cause illness.
Mitigation measure 4.10-l(b) requires that prior to project
construction, a site assessment shall be performed to confirm
whether there are any hazardous materials contamination at the
northeast corner of the Quarry and Arboretum intersection from any
underground tanks on the site.
Mitigation measure 4.10-l(c) requires that if investigation
reveals evidence of chemical contamination, underground storage
tanks, or other environmental impairments on the site, a
remediation plan shall be prepared which will (1) specify measures
to protect workers and the public; and (2) ensure clean up and
disposal of contaminants and protect public health in accordance
with federal, state, and local requirements. Work in the areas of
potential hazard shall not proceed until the site remediation plan
has been implemented. Appropriate agencies shall be notified as
required. A site health and safety plan shall also be developed
and implemented in compliance with OSHA requirements to ensure
worker safety.
The EIR concludP.d that although no known deposits or residues
of unsafe contaminants exist on or adjacent to the project site#
several underground tanks associated with old gas stations formerly
located on corners of the property are known to have existed.
Testing of these tanks and surrounding soils had not been completed
at the time of preparation of the Final EIR, and the EIR therefore
concluded that a potential existed for significant impacts related
to hazardous substances associated with these tanks. The Council
finds that the adopted mitigation measures will reduce this
potential impact to a less than significant level ~y ensuring that
the site is fully investigated and evaluated for the possible
presence of harmful substances, and adequate remediation efforts
undertaken if contaminants are detected in amounts which might pose
and danger to workers or passers-by on the site.
4.10-2 Implementation of the proposed projects could expose
construction workers to asbestos containing materials presently
located in buildings and other structures, resulting in adverse
health effects.
Mitigation measure 4.10-2(a) requires that prior to building
renovation, an asbestos survey shall be performed by a licensed
asbestos abatement contractor on all building areas anticipated to
be renovated during project construction.
Mitigation measure 4.10-2(b) requires that all asbestos
containing materials shall be removed and appropriately disposed of
by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to any building
demolition. A site health and safety plan will be developed and
28
970702 lac 0031589
• •
implemented in compliance with OSHA requirements to ensure worker
safety.
The EIR concluded that workers could potentially encounter
asbestos-containing materials during renovation work on some
existing buildings on the project site. The Council finds that the
adopted mdtigation measure will lessen this potentially significant
impact to a less than significant level by requiring that all
buildings scheduled for renovation be surveyed for asbestos
containing materials prior to renovation, that any materials
located be removed by qualified personnel using accepted safe
practices, and that any residual potential impacts be addressed
through appropriate safety measures incorporated into a health and
safety plan for project workers.
4.10 .. 4 Implementation of the proposed projects could expose
construction workers to electrical transformers and/or fluorescent
light ballasts potentially containing PCBs, and subsequent adverse
health effects.
Mitigation measure 4.10-4(b) provides that if the removal or
relocation of any existing transformers is requiredt the applicant
shall confirm whether or not it contains PCBs. If the transformer
contains PCBs, it shall be removed and disposed of appropriately~
Mitigation measure 4.10-4 (d) requires that the need for
removal, relocation or demolition of existing fluorescent light
ballasts will be determined prior to project implementation. Any
fluorescent lights affected by project shall be inspected to
deter:mine the potential presence of PCBs, and any lights containing
PCBs removed and appropriately disposed of by a licensed hazardous
waste hauler per Title 22 requirements.
Mitigation measure 4.10-4(e) requires that a site health and
safety plan be developed in compliance with OSHA requirements to
ensure worker safety prior to commencing removal and disposal of
PCB-laden materials.
Tne EIR concluded that electrical transformers and florescent
light fixtures on the property could contain PCBs which could nave
a significant impacts on construction workers if accidentally
released during demolition activities. The Council finds that the
adopted mitigations measures will lessen this potentially
significant impact to a less than significant level by providing
for testing and safe removal of all transformers and florescent
fixtures containing PCBs prior to commencement of renovation and
construction activities.
4.11 UTILITIES, ENERGY. AND INFRASTRUCTURE
4.11-3 The proposed projects could use water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4.11-3 requires that in order to reduce
water consumption, the project design shall incorporate measures to
29
970702lac 0031.589
• •
maximize the efficient use of water and minimize total water
consumption. Specific measures to be included are the following:
All landscape designs shall incorporate and address the
City Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. The project
sites would be subject to an annual maximum water
allowance for landscaping.
The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of
Palo Alto Utilities Department, Resource Management
Division to determine other conservation related
improvements that would apply to the projects.
The BIR concluded that because final plans have not been
completed by the applicant specifying how water, particularly for
landscaping. would be efficiently used, there existed a potential
that water could be used wastefully by the project. The Council
finds that the adopted mitigation measure will lessen this
potentially significant impact to insignificance by ensuring that
final landscaping and construction plans meet current City Water
Efficiency Standards and incorporate additional conservation
measures if recommended by City staff.
4.11-4 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing water services.
Mitigation measure 4.11-4 provides that prior to the start of
construction of infrastructure, the project applicant shall provide
a plan for review and approval to the City of Palo Alto Director of
Utilities outlining the approach to be taken to minimize the impact
to existing utilities and customers.
The EIR determined that connection of infrastructure
associated with the project to existing service li.nes and
facilities could result in potentially significant interruptions of
utility services for existing users, specifically ihterruptions of
water service (Impact 4-11-4), wastewater service (Impact
4-11-11), electrical service (Impact 4-11-17) and gas service
(Impact 4-11-24.} The Council finds that the adopted mitigation
measure will lessen each of these potentially significant impacts
to a less than significant level by requiring the applicant to
submit and obtain approval of plans which will provide for
completion of all utility connections for the project with the
minimum necessary interruption of existing services.
4 .. 11-7 Cumulative development could use water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4.11-7 provides that the City shall ensure
that each new project approved within the City requiring ARB
approval is required to be consistent with and implement the City
policies and programs related to water conservation.
The EIR concluded that existing City policies and programs are
adequate to avoid cumulative wasteful use of water, and that a
significant adverse impact had the potential to occur only if the
30
970702 lac 0031 S.t9
~~~~~~~~-----------------------------~~------··---.. ------• •
City failed to continue to implement these policies and programs.
The adopted mitigation measure provides that the City will continue
to implement existing water conservation policies by ~aking
compliance a condition of ARB approval for all new projects. The
Council finds that this mitigation measure will lessen the
pot~ntially significant cumulative impacts to insignificance.
4.11~9 ~e proposed projects would require improvement of the
existing 21-inch wastewater line.
Mitigation measure 4.11-9 requires that in the event that
open-trench technology is used, the project applicant shall ensure
that the new 24-inch wastewater line is constructed coincident
with, and placed in the right-of-way of_ Palo Road, during Phase I
of project construction, thereby avoiding potential biological
impacts and conflicts with future uses associated with the
alternative location of the line.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen. the potential significant adverse impacts associated
with construction of a new 21"' wastewater line to a less than
significant level. Tnis mitigation measure requires the applicant
to either use tec~~ology which avoids trenching and resulting tree
removal in the Stanford Arboretum, or to relocate the route of the
replacement pipeline along existing right-of-way containing no
significant enviro~~ental resources in order to avoid impacts to
the Arboretum.
4.11-10 The proposed projects would generate additional
wastewater flows that could exceed the capacity of the existing
27-inch wastewater line.
Mitigation measure 4.11·10(a) provides that if the proposed
project is developed prior to the Palo Alto Medical Fpundation
(PAMF) project, the project applicant shall perform flow metering
and a capacity study of the 27-inch wastewater line, and shall be
responsible for the costs of the improvement associated with the
projects. All aspects of construction within the railroad
right-of-way shall meet Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(PCJPB) requirements and shall be approved by PCJPB.
Mitigation measure 4.11-10 (b) provides that if the PAMF
project is developed prior to the proposed projects, the project
applicant shall coo~inate with the Palo Alto Utilities Department
and the PAMF project engineers to ensure that the proposed
downstream 27-inch wastewater line is enlarged with adequate
capacity for the proposed Stanford West ho'l;sing and Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion projects.
The EIR concluded that the project, in conjunction with the
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion and proposed PAMF expansion
project, would likely result in cumulative wastewater flows which
exceed the capacity of the existing 27" wastewater line serving
these projects. The Council finds that adoption of these
mitigation measures will lessen this potential impact to
31
97070llac 0031 Sa9
• •
insignificance by requiring the applicant to bear the costs of all
improvements determined necessary to provide adequate wastewater
line capacity for all three projects, and that all improvements
within the railroad right-of-way crossed by the pipeline be
constructed with the approval of the PCJPB, which maintains the
rail lines.
4.11-11 Construction of the proposed improvements could disru.pt
existing wastewater services.
Mitigation measure 4.11 .. 11 req1.1ires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4, discussed above.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4.11-13 Cumulative development could require major ~frastrueture
tmprovements to the existing wastewatar system.
Mitigation measure 4~ll-13(aJ re'2ol1"lnends that. the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Department ensure that developers responsible for
construction of new wastewater-lines coordinate with all other
parties intending to utilize the line.
Mitigation measure 4.11-13(b) recommends that sewer line
capacity studies satisfactory to the City's Director of Utilities
be conducted prior to initiating future cumulative development.
Mitigation measure 4.11-13(c) recommends that all final
designs for the sizing of new sewer mains shall be based on
infiltration from a 20-year storm and peak base wastewate~~ flow.
The EIR concluded that lack of coordinated pla~~ing for future
development could result in failure to adequately size area
wastewater lines, resulting in future need to again upgrade these
lines to provide needed capacity. The recommended mitigation
measures provide for full evaluation and correct ·sizing of mains
prior to cumulative development. The Council finds that adoption
of these measures will lessen the project 1 s contribution to this
potential cumulative impact. to a less-than significant level.
These mitigation measures will also lessen the overall potential
cumulative impact to a less than significant level since
implementation of these measures will result in provision of
adequate long-ter:m capacity for all reasonably foreeaeable
development~
4.11-17 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing electrical services.
Mitigation measure 4.11-17 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4 for all Sand Hill Corridor projects.
See :~indings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
32
9707021ac 0031'89
• •
4.11·24 Construction of the proposed improvements could dierupt
existing gas services.
Mitigation measure 4 .11·24 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11·4 for all Sand Hill Corridor projects.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4 , 12 PUBLIC SBRVICES AN]) SCHOOLS
4.12·3 Increased traffic due to the construction of the proposed
projects could reduce Palo Alto Fire Depa.rtaent (PAPD) re:SpOJ:Uie
times, especially during special events on the Stanford ca.pua,
peak commute hours, and seasonal holidays, when traffic flow is
known to increase significantly~
Mitigation measure 4.12-3(a) requires that as a condition of
project approval f the project applicant shall prepare a
construction vehicle management plan that:
Uses established truck routes tor large construction
v·ehicles;
Includes an approved construction plan, including
scheduling, routes and methods, to minimize construction
impacts during peak annual traffic periods (e.g .. special
events at Stanford University, holiday seasons, etc.).
Ensures that Sand Hill Road will remain open at all times
in each direction to allow direct access to the Stanford
University Medical Center from both directions.
Mitigation measure 4.12-J(b) requires the applicant to prepare
and comply with an emergency response pl~~ that specifies ~lternate
emergency response routes to the project sites and vicinity which
meet the PAFD and Palo Alto Police Department {PAPD) response time
goals. The Plan shall keep one lane in each direction of Sand Hill
Road open at all times.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project's construction-phase impact on emergency
response times to a less than significant level.. The measure
provides for detailed planning which will ensure that adequate
alternate response routes and a miniwJm of one open lane on Sand
Hill Road are maintained at all times during to construction for
emergency traffic.
4.12-4 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of fire suppression service calls to the PAPD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-4 identifies three alternative means
for offsetting cumulative increased demands on Palo Alto Fire
Department resources. The conditions of approval for the project
adopt the third of these alternate means, specifically:
33
97070llac0031589
• •
The City will provide additional resources to the PAFD
through the City's General Fund from the increased tax
revenues generated by the Sand Hill Corridor projects and
other future cumulative projects.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified cumulative impact on fire suppression services to a
less than significant l~vel for each of the Sand Hill Corridor
projects and future development. Cost and revenue projections for
the approved projects indicate that increased tax revenues from the
projects and other potential future development will be more than
adequate to fund additional resources for the PAFD necessary to
maintain current levels of service throughout the City, The
Council also finds that the alternative means of funding increased
PAFD resources identified in EIR mitigation measure 4.12-4,
specifically (1) fair share applicant funding of new PAFD
personnel, and {2) fair-share contributions from future projects,
are not necessary based on current information to maintain a.dequate
fire protection wi.thin the City and would result in imposing
unnecessary special additional costs on new development.
4.12-5 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of medical emergency service calls to the PAFD~
Mitigation measure 4.12-5 provides that future cun1ulative
projects could pay fair share toward a medi-van unit; or,
alternately, the City could provide additional medi-van resources
to the PAFD with general fund increases from tax revenues generated
by the projects and other future cumulative projects.
The Council has adopted the second of these mitigation
alternatives for the Sand Hill Corridor projects. The Council
finds that the adopted mitigation measure will .lessen the
identified potential cumulative impact on emergency. medical
sei:Vices to a less than significant level. Cq~t and revenue
projections indicate that increased tax revenues from the Sand Hill
Corridor projects and other potential future development will be
adequate to fund additional emergency medical resources as needed
to maintain cur~ent levels of service throughout the City. The
Council also finds that the alternative tneans of funding increased
emergency medical services identified in EIR mitigation measure
4.12-5, specifically that future development projects directly pay
a fair share toward a medi-van unit or, is not necessary to
maintain adequate level of emergency medical services based on
c~~rent information.
4.12-6 Increased construction traffic
development could reduce PAFD response t~es.
from cumulative
Mitigation measure 4.12-6 provides that as part of the project
approval process, the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and
Community Environment shall ensure the following:
970702 lac 0031 589
All projects coordinate with the PAF~ and PAPD to prepare
an emergency response plan for the construction period
34
-------------~~-------------------, • •
that specifies alternate emergency response ~cutes to the
project site and vicinity which meet the Departments'
response time goals; and
The Emergency Response Plan for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects will specify procedures to allow simultaneous
construction without increasing emergency response times
to an unacceptable level.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project's potential impact on PAFD emergency
response times to a less than significant level. This measure
ensures that detailed plans will be developed and implemented to
ensure tt~t existing or adequate alternative response routes will
be kept open at all times to permit PAFD responses to all service
areas within PAFD response time standards.
4.12-9 Increased traffic due to the construction of the proposed
projects could increase police response times, especially during
special events on the Stanford Campus, peak commute hours, and
seasonal holidaysr when traffic flow is known to increase
aignificantly.
Mitigation measure 4.12-9
mitigation measure ~.12-3(b).
requires implementation of
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project 1 S construction-phase impact on emergency
response times to a less than significant level. Mitigation
measure 4.12-3(b) provides for detailed planning which will ensure
that adequate alternate response routes for emergency traffic are
maintained at all times during to construction.
4.12-10 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of police service calls to the PAPD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-10 provides that one of the following
measures shall be implemented to offset increased demand on Palo
Alto Police Department resources,
The project applicant shall provide fair share funding
for additional PAPD personnel;
The City shall require fair-share contributions from all
future projects placing increased demand on the PAPD; or
The City could fund additional PAPD resources from
increased tax revenues generated by the projects and
other future cumulative projects.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the potential cumulative impact of the project and of new
development generally on police services to a less than significant
level. Cost and revenue projections indicate that increased tax
revenues from the Sand Hill Corridor projects and other potential
35
910702 lac 0031 $19
• •
future development will be adequate to fund additional emergency
medical resources as needed to maintain current levels of service
throughout the City. The Council also finds that the alternative
means of funding increased emergency medical services identified in
· BIR mdtigation measure 4~12-5, specifically that future development
projects directly pay a fair share toward a medi-van unit org is
not necessary to maintain adequate level of emergency medical
services based on current information~
4.12~11 Deaigue of cu.ulative development projects could present
•ecurity risks to occupant• and police patrol personnel.
Mitigation measure 4.1.2-11 reconmends that the City Department
of Planning and Community Environment ensure that future project
lighting and landscaping are reviewed with the PAPD to eliminate
safety risks. The A.l(.B shall provide final review and approval.
The Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project will not
contribute to any cumulative security risk for citizens or police
officers. Adoption of this mitigation measvre as a policy
governing review and a.pproval of all future development within the
City is beyond the scope of the decision and approvals granted for
the project. However, the Council finds that the recommended
mitigation measure can and should be implemented in relation to
future development projects involving potential security problems
within the City.
4.12-12 Increased construction traffic from
development could increase PAPD response times.
cumulative
Mitigation measure 4.12-12 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4,12-6 by all approved Sand Hill Road Corridor
Projects.
This mitigation measure has been implemented by adoption of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 for the each of the app':t·oved Sand Hill
Corridor projects. The Council finds that implementation of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 will lessen the cumulative impact of
construction of the projects en PAPD response times to a less than
significant level. '
4.12-14 CUmulative development, including the proposed Stanford
West Apartaents Project. would cause K-12th grade enrolLments to
exceed PAUSD school capacity of 916 students or 12 percent in year
2004~2005.
The EIR proposed the adoption of mitigation measure 4.12-14 to
mitigate this identified cumulative impact. Mitigation measure
4.12-14 recommends that the City adopt a policy that encourages all
future developers to contribute their fair share over and above
payment of the development fee to mitigate school impacts.
The Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project will not have
any significant impact on school enrollments. Adoption of a City
policy of encouraging future developers to contribute school
36
970702 lac 0031 Sl9
• •
mdtigation funds in excess of mandate~/ development fees is beyond
the scope of approvals for the project. However, the Council
recognizes that cumulative impacts on public schools from other
future development are potentially significant, and further finds
that these impacts would remain potentially significant whether or
not. the suggested mitigation measure is adopted as a policy of the
City since contributions by developers would remain voluntary
regardless of City encouragement, The Council has taken
substantial steps to encourage th.e project applicant to discuss and
fund mutually acceptable mitigation measures with affected school
districts in relation to the Stanford West Apartments project~ and
can and will continue to take similar steps to encourage voluntary
additional contributions by developers of future projects with the
goal of fully offsetting any impacts which cannot be mitigated
through mandatory development fees and tax revenue increases
associated with new development.
4.12-17 The operation of the proposed projects would increase
solid waste generation in tbe City of Palo Alto requiring increased.
diversion to meet the goals of AB 939.
Mitigation measure 4.12-17(a) requires that as a cona~tion of
project approval, the applicant shall prepare and obtain approval
from the City Public Works Department of a landfill diversion
management program that meets the diversion goals of the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and AB939 . The program
shall include specific provisions detailed in the EIR.
Mitigation measure 4.12-17(b) recommends that the City require
all new development projects to prepare operation recycling
programs which w.ill meet the AB939 diversion goal of 50 percent by
2000. The program shall include specific provisions detailed in
the EIR~
The Council finds that adoption of mitigation measure
4.12-l?(a) will lessen the project's potential solid waste impacts
to a less than significant level. This mitigation measure requires
the applicant to develop, with City supervision, a plan which will
ensure that solid wastes from the project are processed in a manner
which ensure compliance with the recycling goals of AB939.
Adoption and enforcement of mitigation measure 4~12-l?(a) will also
implement mitigation measure 4.12-l?{b) with respect to the
project. Adoption of mitigation measure 4.12-l?(b) as a policy
governing review and approval of all future development within the
City is beyond the scope of approvals granted for the Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion project. However, the Council finds that
adoption of the proposed mitigation measure can and should be
adopted in relation to future development projects within the City.
4.12-18 The proposed projects would increase solid waste
generation in the City of Palo Alto during construction requiring
increased diversion to meet the goals of AB 939.
Mitigation measure 4.12-18 requires the applicant to prepare
and implement a construction recycling plan approved by the City
37
970702 ·~ 00) 1589
• •
Public Works Department. The plan shall include specific steps to
achieve the City's short-term SRRE diversion goal of 30-40 percent
through various specified measures.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified potential solid waste impact to a less than
significant level. The approved recycling plan will ensure that
provision is made for recovering all recyclable wastes generated
during construction, thus avoiding unnecessary placement of
recyclable materials in landfills.
4.12-19 Cumulative development anticipat~d by the City through
Year 2010, including the proposed projects, would increase aolid
waste generation by 5.5 percent over 1995 levels to 155,650 tone
per year based on the projected growth of population and employees.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 12-19(a} recommends that the City require
significant new development projects to prepare constru.ction
recycling plans as part of the project approval process. The
construction plan shall include specific steps to achieve the .~939
diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000 through various specified
measures.
Mitigation measure 4.12-19(b) recommends that the City require
new development projects to prepare long-term operational recycling
programs as part of project approval process. The programs should
meet the AB939 diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000, and include
various additional specified elements
These mitigation measures have been effectively applied to the
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project through the adoption of
mitigation measures 4.12-l?(a) and 4.12-18. The Council finds that
adoption of these measures will reduce the project's contribution
to potential cumulative solid waste impacts to a less than
significant level. Adoption of mitigation measure 4.12-19(a) and
4 .. 12-19 (b) as policies governing review and approval of future
development projects within the City is beyond the scope of the
approvals granted for the project. However, the Council finds that
the proposed mitigation measure can and should be adopted in
relation to future development projects approved by the City.·
5. 2 GROWTH INDUCING :IMPACTS
The EIR concluded that the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion
project will have a significant growth inducing impact in that
upgrading of the existing 21n sewer line serving the project area
to the 24" line necessary to serve the project and the Stanford
West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects will
remove an obstacle to growth of the Stanford Medical Center, which
has announced tentative plans for expansion. The EIR does not
identify any potential mitigation measures for this growth-inducing
impact. The 24n sewer line will be constructed with the minimum
size pipe available with sufficient capacity to ensure adequate
service of the approved Sand Hill Corridor development projects.
Since excess capacity will still be provided by this sewer line
38
970702 lac 003 J 589
• •
which could facilitate expansion of the Stanford Medical Center or
other development, this impact is potentially eignificant.
The EIR concluded that the overall set of roadway improvements
may serve to remove an obstacle to development of the contemplated
400,000 square foot expansion of the Stanford Medical Center. The
traffic impacts of such development of the Medical Center as well
as the impacts of cumulative development along the Sand Hill
corridor were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis
contained in the EIR. The EIR finds the ~cts of such cumulative
development within the Sand Hill corridor significant, as discussed
elsewhere in these findings.
39
910702 lac 0031S89
... -------------------------------------------------• •
PART II
ALTBJlRATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The Council has also considered the alternatives to the propc~ed
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project analyzed in the EIR.
Based on the following considerations, the Council has deter.mined
that all identified alternatives to the project are infeasible.
The findings set forth below stating this Council's reasons for
rejecting each alternative in favor of the project describe several
separate grounds for rejecting each alternative, each of which this
Council has determined constitutes an independent basis for this
Council·s decision to approve the project and to reject the proposed
alt.ernat.ive.
STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER EXPANSION
NQ Proiect : ~o Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, the applicant would retain
the ability to expand existing shopping center facilities with
49,000 square feet of additional retail space. This development
would i11clude addition of new buildings to the center. The EIR
assumed that this alternative would not include construction of any
large new parking structures~ The shopping center parking lot
would need to be reconfigured to compensate for parking spaces
displaced for new constructiont and loss of some existing trees in
parking areas would occur4 The overall number of parking spaces
available at the shopping center could decrease, particularly if
the Sand Hill Road Fxtension and Related Roadway Improvements
project were still implemented. Overall this alternative would
result in similar although somewhat reduced impacts as the approved
project, except that the additional visual impacts associated with
a new parking structure would not occur.
The Council finds that this alternative is in!easible because
it would not achieve the project objective of maintaining the
Stanford Shopping Center's current economic competitiveness and
would not generate funding necessary to implement needed roadway
~rovements included in the Sand Hill Road Extension and Related
Roadway Improvements.
While the Sand Hill Corridor projects have been individually
reviewed and analyzed by the City, the projects have been planned
by the applicant as an integrated set of development proposals.
The costs of the proposed Sand Hill Road Extension and Related
Road.-ay Improvements to the applicant will be offset primarily from
increased revenues generated by the Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion. Stanford has indicated that limited expansion of the
shopping center by 49,000 s~1are feet will not increase revenues
sufficiently to make funding of the roadway improvements
economically feasible for Stanford, and that the roadway
improvements included in the Sand Hill Road Extension and Related
Roadway Improvements therefore would not be undertaken if
additional expansion is not allowedw Funding for these roadway
40
910102 lac OOll Sl9
• •
improvements is not available from the City or any other public
agency and the improvements will not occur if not funded by the
applicant. The Council has determined the implementation of the
Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project
is necessary to alleviate already poor traffic conditions in the
Sand Hill Corridor and to accommodate anticipated cumulative
traffic increases and traffic from the approved Stanford West
Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects at acceptable
levels of service. Denial of the SHRE/RRI project to avoid the
need for expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center is not a
feasible alternative, nor is denial of the Stanford West Apartments
project or Stanford West Senior Housing project to reduce the need
for area road improvements a feasible alternative, for reasons
stated in the fin,:iings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
adopted for these projects.
The reduced development permitted under the No Action
alternative also would not achieve a basic reasonable economic
objective of the project. E\.ridence received by the Council
confirrns that increasing :.be O'v·erall retail base and diversity of
the Stanford Shopping Center is essential to maintaining its
competitive statJs arnong regional shoppir:g centers, The 80, OQO
square feet of increased retail space allowed under the approved
project represents a reasonable minimum necessary to assure
Stanford the ability to maintain its current relative
attractiveness and competitiveness in relation to other regional
shopping centers in the long term. In addition, development under
the ~-lo Action a l ter:na t i ve would not provide for increased parking
to support new retail space and would be likely to result in a:1
actual decrease in the current ratio of parking to retail ·space,
rendering the shopping center less attractive to both retailers and
customers. Overall, the potential incremental reductions in
environmental impacts which would result from the No Action
alternative do not justify this alternative in comparison with the
approved project. In finding the No Action alternative infeasible,
the Council does not find that additional growth of the Stanford
Shopping Center is beneficial or desirable for its own sake. The
Council is persuaded, however1 that the additional expansion
allowed under the approved project is necessary to maintain the
overall long-term economic health and viability of the Stanford
Shopping Center and its lessees, and to sustain the corresponding
social and economic benefits to the community.
No Project -No Development
The No Development alterP4tive would result in no expansion or
new construction at the Stanford Shopping Center. This alternative
would eliminate all impacts associated with the Stanford Shopping
Center Expansion project, as well as all benefits resulting from
the expansion. Long-term implementation of this alternative would
require revisions to the City1 s existing zoning ordinance, which
allows additional expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center by
approximately 49,000 square feet.
41
970702 lac 003 J S89
• •
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the
same reasons as the No Action alternative. This alternative would
not permit the applicant to achieve its reasonable economic
objectives and would eliminate funding for needed area roadway
improvements included in the Sand Hill Road Extension and Related
Roadway Improvements. The adverse long~ term economic consequences
of this alternative would also probably be far more severe than for
the No Action alternative and could result a decline in the
economic viability of the Stanford Shopping Center. As in the case
of the No Action alternative, the Council finds that expansion of
the existing Stanford Shopping Center facilities is necessary to
maintain the overall attractiveness. competitiveness and economdc
health and viability of the shopping center and its lessePs and
corresponding benefit~ to the community.
160.000 Square Foot EXPansion (Originally Proposed Project}
As originally proposed by the applicant and evaluated in the
EIR, the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project. included a
total of 160,000 square feet of commercial space. The original
proposed project also included construction of new multi-story
parking structures adjacent to Sand Hill Road. The applicant
modified the proposed parking structure plans during environrrLental
review to relocate the proposed structures south of the main
shopping center buildings and along Quarry Road in order to avoid
unacceptable visual and land use impacts on the Sand Hill Road
corridor. Even with the relocation of these structures, however,
the 160,000 square foot alternative would result in greater direct
and cumulative impacts than the approved project. The 160, 000
square foot al ten1ati ve is further deemed infeasible by t.he Council
because it would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the
jobs/housing balance within the City and surrounding area and would
in this respect unacceptably offset the overriding beneficial
housing impacts of the Stanford West Apartments project approved
concurrently with the Stanford Shopping Center E~~nsion.
75% Reduced Density Alternative
The EIR also evaluated a 75% Reduced Density alternative for
the project consisting of development of approximately 120,'000
square feet of new commercial space. The Council assumes that
relocation of proposed parking structures to Quarry Road and all
applicable mitigation measures incorporated into the approved
project could be incorporated into the 75% Reduced Density
alternative to minimize impacts. This alternative would still
result in incrementally greater direct and cumulative impacts than
the approved project. The 75% Reduced Density alternative is
further deemed infeasible by the Council because i.t would result in
an unacceptable adverse impact on the jobs/housing balance within
the City and surrounding area and would unacceptably offset the
overriding beneficial housing impacts of the Stanford West
Apartments project.
970702 lac 0031.589
• •
SOt Reduced Density Alternative
The Draft EIR evaluated a SO% Reduced Density alternative
consisting of development of approximately 80,000 square feet of
new retail space. The SO% Reduced Density alternative evaluated in
the Draft EIR includes construction of parking structures adjacent
to, Sand Hill Road. The sot Reduced Density alternative was given
further consideration by the Planning Commission in its review of
the DEIR 1 resulting in a Planning Commission recommendation for
evaluation of a modified so % reduced density alternative which
included relocation of parking structures and other proposed
modifications to the location of new construction included in the
project. This recommendation resulted in the "50\ Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion Alternative" evaluated in section 13.2 of
the Final EIR. .
The Council finds that this 50% Reduced Density alternative as
originally analyzed in the Draft EIR is infeasible and unacceptable
because it would result in greater impacts than the approved
project, particularly visual and land use impacts on the Sand Hill
Road corridor. The DEIR SO% Reduced Density alternative would
result in essentially the same direct and cu..'Liulative impacts as t·he
approved project in many respects, e.g. traffic generation and
potential construction phase impacts, but does not incorporate
additional desirable design changes and refinements included in the
approved project to improve the overall design of the shopping
center project.. The Council finds that the approved project
represents a superior design which should be adopted by the City.
"50% Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Alternative"
At the recommendation of the Planning Commission~ the Final
EIR included evaluation of a Refined 50% Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion Alternative which incorporated various. design
improvements. The approved project follows the Refined 50%
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Alternative, ins'ofar as the new
parking structure will be located on Quarry Road rather than Sand
Hill Road, subject to changes and refinements added by the Council
and by Stanford. The 11Final S\.lllUT1.3.ry of Project Changes, noted that
changes in the location buildings on the site would not have 'any
significant environmental effect.
No Housing Alternative
The EIR also examined a "no-housing" alternative which would
have consisted of approving 160,000 square feet of new commercial
space for the Stanford Shopping Center and approving the Sand Hill
Road Ext en~ ion and Related Roadway Improvements project while
denying approval for the proposed Stanford West Apartments and
Stanford West Senior Housing projects. The primary purpose of this
EIR alternative was to examine the effects on the area
transportation system of approving only the proposed roadway
improvements and proposed shopping center expansion elements of the
Sand Hill Corridor projects. With respect to the Stanford Shopping
Center Expansion project, the Council finds that the alternative is
43
970702 lac 0031 589
• •
infeasible for the reasons previously stated in relation to the
160,000 square foot alternative.
ijoyqing With Limited Shopping Center Development
The EIR also examined a "housing with limited shopping center
expansion" alternative consisting of (1) approval of the Stanford
West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing; {2) construction
of 49,000 square feet of new Stanford Shopping Center space only;
(3) without any of the roadway improvements proposed in the Sand
Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project. The
Council does not consider this alternative to be an alternative to
the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project. This alternative
was evaluated in the EIR to examine the effects on the area
transportation system of approving only residential development and
limited shopping expansion, without major area roadway
improvements. This alternative is not considered feasible because
it would not provide an adequate roadway system to meet the needs
of the approved Sand Hill Corridor projects and cumulative traffic
growth expected in the area, and would result in the unacceptable
traffic conditions reported in the discussion of this alternative
in the EIR. With respect to the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion
element of this alternative, the alternative is considered
infeasible for the same reasons as the No Action alternative.
Alternative Sites
The EIR did not evaluate potential alternative sites for the
proposed Stanford Shopping Center expansion for the reason that
such alternatives would be fundamentally inconsistent with the
nature of the proposed project and would not advance the basic
project objectives of enhancing the attractiveness and
competitiveness of the Stanford Shopping Center.
Evidence received by the Council confirms that increasing the
overall retail base and diversity of the Stanford Shopping Center
is essential to maintaining its competitive status' among regional
shopping centers. Construction of new commercial retail space at
other locations would not achieve the basic objectives of the
project. The Council also has received no evidence that
construction of additional commercial space at any alternate site
would result in fewer or less severe environmental impacts than the
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion project. The Council therefore
finds that alternative sites do not constitute reasonable or
potentially feasible alternatives to the Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion project and that alternative sites for the Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion were therefore reasonably not evaluated
in the EIR.
44
970702 lac 0031 ~89
• •
BXBIBIT B
SMJI) IILL ROAD RfiQISIQH. WIPIHING i RBLATID ROADWAY IMPRO'VEMENTS
COUJICIL FDJDIRGS COBCBRIIIBG MITIGATION OP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AJ1D CONSIDERATIONS OP ALTERNATIVES
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") has read
and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR")
prepared for the Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway
Improvements (RSHRE/RRI"} project. The EIR has been prepared for
five projects including the Stanford West Apartments, Stanford West
Senior Housing, Stanford Shopping Center Expansion, SHRE/RRI
projects, referred to collectively herein as the "Sand Hill
Corridor projects, 11 and the Pasteur Drive Parcel Annexation
project. These projects are described in Chapter 3 of the EIR, and
include, as approved by the Council, the changes and revisions
described in Chapter 11 and in the uFinal Summary of Project
Changes I" rnade a part of the Final EIR by the certify:lng
resolution.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a} of the Public Resources Code, the
Council has considered each environmental impact of the Sand Hill
Road Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project identified
in the EIR~ and each of the mitigation measures and project
alternatives evaluated in the EIR.
The Council's detailed findings for each significant
environmental impact or potentially significant environmental
impact identified in the EIR are set forth below. Each significant
or potentially significant environmental impact identified in the
BIR is listed in bold.. Those mitigation measures adopted or
partially adopted by the Council are also numbered in bold. The
Council's reasons for rejection or partial rejection of certain
mitigation measures and reasons for selection among alternative
potential mitigation measures are described where appropriate~
The Council's reasons for rejecting specific alternatives to
the project identified in the EIR are stated in Part II of these
findings.
1
• •
PART I
CB.UIGBS AND IIITIGATIOB IIBASURES ADOPTED TO REDUCE DIPACTS
4.1 LN1JJ USB
The EIR identified the following potential significant land
use effects of the sand Hill Road Extension, Widening and Related
Roadway Improvements project.
4.1-l The propoaed project• could result in a substantial
change in the ebarecf:er of the land uses on or around the project
sites.
4.1-5 Implementation of the proposed projects, in conjunction
with cumulative development within the Sand Hill Road Corridor,
would result in a change in character in the area~
The EIR concludes that there are no feasible mitigation
measures available which will substantially reduce the identi.f~ed
significant land use impacts and that these impacts are therefore
unavoidable.
The Council also finds that changes to the existing character
of the Sand Hill corridor as a result of the project, both
individually and in conjunction with the Sand Hill Corridor
development projects approved concurrently with the project, are
significant. The conditions for approval of the project, however,
incorporate a number of mitigation measures which will lessen the
overall severity of t.hese impacts by reducing visual impacts,
providing for replacement of trees and restoration of habitat
affected by the project of trees, enhancing opportunities for
pedestrian and bicycle travel in the Sand Hill Road corridor and
mitigating the potential noise impacts on neighboring residents.
These measures are discussed in greater detail in the findings
pertaining to mitigation of cultural, visual, transportation, noise
and biological impacts.. The project has also been modified to
reduce the extension of Sand Hill Road between Arboretum and El
Camino Real to two through traffic lanes, thus substantially
reducing the visual impact and overall change of character of road
development along this section of the Sand Hill corridor. Despite
these measures, however, the impact remains significant.
Project Areas Outside the City
Authority and responsibility for mitigating impacts of those
portions of the project west of San Francis~Jito Creek, including
relocation of portions of the golf course, is vested in the City of
Menlo Parkl and, to a limited extent, the County of Santa Clara and
County of San Mateo. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures
which, if adopted by these agencies, will reduce the project's
overall impact on the existing land use of the area, and will in
some cases, if implemented, actually result in an improvement in
2
970702 lac 0031590
• •
existing conditions. The Council finds that in the event that
elements of the project within the City of Menlo Park, County of
Santa Clara and County of San Mateo are approved~ these measures
can and should be adopted by the respective responsible agencies to
lessen the adverse impacts of the project, although the impacts
will remain significant.
4 , 2 VISUAL OUALITY /LIGlfl' AND GLARE
4.2-1 The proposed projects would result iD major Yiaual
changes within the Sand Bill R.oad corridor for viewers traveling on
Sand Bill Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(h), as applicable to the Cityf
requires that planted crib walls or other means of allowing
interplanting or overhanging of vegetation should be incorporated
if architecturally and technically feasible in the retaining wall
southeast of the San Francisquito Creek bridge.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the visual impacts of the project on travelers on Sand Hill Road,
but will not reduce the impact to a less than sigr...ificant level.
The Council also finds that other changes and mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the project and conditions of approval
of the project which will lessen the project's overall visual
impacts to drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians on Sand Hill Road to
the extent feasible. These changes and mitigation measures include
the reduction of the Sand Hill Road extension from four lanes, as
originally proposed. to two through lanes and provisions for
installation and maintenance c-f landscaping and medians in the
project conditions of approval. Additional changes and mitigation
measures have also been adopted in conjunction with the other
proposed Sand Hill Corridor projects to also reduce overall visual
impacts on travelers in the Sand Hill Corridor. However,
notwithstanding adoption of these changes and mitigation measures,
the overall adverse visual impacts of the project f.or travelers on
Sand Hill Road will remain significant, due to the substantial
change in existing conditions which will result from construction
of additional paved traffic and bicycle lanes, increased nurnber of
intersections, tr.affic signals and other road improvements.
Rejected Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(I) would require that the proposed
bicycle and pedestrian path be realigned, if feasible, off of the
road shoulder and set back from the road east of the San
Francisquito Creek crossing. Vegetation screening would also be
established between the path and road if feasible.
The City Planning Commission recommended rejection of this
mitigation measure on the basis of testimony that this proposed
mitigation measure would adversely affect bicycle use of the
proposed pathway. The Council finds that implementation of this
mitigation measure is infeasible and undesirable due to potential
adverse effect on bicycle use, and because the cost and design
3
97070llac 0031S90
• •
problems involved in implementation of this measure are not
justified by the marginal and very localized decrease the measure
would achieve in overall visual impacts of the project~
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(j) proposes narrowing of the proposed
road improvements to fewer lanes in the area of San Francisquito
Creek at both the bridge crossing and the proposed extension area.
Center median design should be revised to permit additional center
median tree planting in this area and the area east of Santa Cruz
Avenue.
The Council has required reduction of the Sand Hill Road
extension from Arboretum to El Camino Real to two lanes, thus
partially implementing this measure. However, with respect to
restricting Sand Hill Road to fewer than four lanes at the San
Francisquito Creek crossing, the Council finds that implementation
of this proposed mitigation measure is infeasible and undesirable
because long-term retention of Sand Hill Road as a two lane roa.d
west of Arboret~~ is not practical in view of anticipated regional
transportation needs and vehicle traffic demands. Studies
performed for the EIR indicate that cumulative traffic on Sand Hill
Road~ together with traffic from the other approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects, cannot be accommodated on a two-lane Sand Hill
Road west of Arboretum at acceptable levels of service and without
causing substantial unacceptable delays for vehicle traffic in the
Sand Hill Corridor. The Council also recognizes that the City of
Menlo Park may, as a practical matter, independently impose this
mitigation measure as it applies to the San Francisquito Creek
bridge because the bridge widening will required approvals from
both the City and Menlo Park. The Council does not recommend,
however, that Menlo Park adopt this as a mitigation measure for the
reasons stated above.
Project Areas Outside the City
With respect to those portions of the project Jocated west of
San Francisquito Creek and outside of City territory, the EIR
recommended the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(h) provides for a number of measl.lres
to reduce visual impacts along the expanded Sand Hill Road in Menlo
Park, including the following. Mitigation measure 4.7-l(f)
provides for preservation of a large elderberry tree adjacent to
the expanded Sand Hill road. (This has already been incorporated
into the plans.) The retaining wall east of the Sand Hill Road
Bridge shall be kept to the minimum necessary length and height.
Materials used shall be in keeping with the character of the scenic
roadway and plantings shall be used to obscure the view of the
wall.
Mitigation measure 4.2-l(j) proposes, in part, that center
median designs should be revised to permit additional center median
tree planting in the area east of Santa Cruz Avenue.
4
970702 lac 0031590
• •
Jurisdiction and responsibility for adoption and implementation of
these measures is vested in the City of Menlo Park. The Council
finds that in the event the portions of the project within Menlo
Park are approved, these mitigation measures can and should be
adopted by Menlo Park. If implemented, these measures would lessen
but would not eliminate ·che significant visual impacts of the
project within Menlo Park due to the overall magnitude of changes
in existing setting resulting from the project.
4.2~5 The proposed projects would diminish the visual quality
of the City' a wooded north entry on El Camino Real frontage
adjacent to Sa.n Prancisquito Creek.
Mitigation measure 4.2·5{a) requires that the Sand Hill Road
extension be realigned approximately 40 feet southwards to more
closely coincide with the bounds of the existing Stanford Shopping
Center parking lot where it approaches El Camino Real.
Mitigation measure 4. 2-5 (b) requires that the Sand Hill
Road/El Camino Real intersection be redesigned so that new lanes on
El camino Real are located within the existing pavement area of El
Camino Real, and do not interfere with the wooded gateway area near
the creek. Tree removal as a result of the widening of El Camino
Real, shall not be allowed. The final landscape plan shall be
modified to increase the amount of major tree planting at both the
intersection and the portions of the southern edge of Sand Hill
Road visible from the intersection, in order to reduce
post-constru.ction views into the shopping center parking lots, and
if possible, reduce the visibility of the increased scale of the
intersection.
Both of these measures have been incorporated into the final
design of the approved project. The Council finds that adoption of
these mitigation measures will lessen the identified visual impacts
to a less than significant level. These measures will ~~eserve the
existing wooded area in the area of the gateway and preserve
existing roadway width and frontage along El Camino Real, thus
generally preserving the existing visual character of the gateway
area and eliminating the potential impacts identified in the EIR.
. .
4.2-6 The proposed projects would diminish the visual quality
of the Bl Camino Real frontage between San Francisquito Creek and
Quarry Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-6(a) requires the applicant to prepare
and implement design guidelines or controls for development of the
retail structure at Quarry Road and El Camino Real to ensure
compatibility with the area, subject to approval by the Palo Alto
Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission. Alternately,
the applicant may remove this structure from the site plan,
relocating the square footage to other portions of the Shopping
Center if feasible. As discussed below, the Council has adopted
the mitigation measure, rejecting the alternative.
5
970702 W: 0031 S90
• •
Mitigation measure 4 .2·6 (b) requires the intersection of
Quarry Road and El Camino Real to be redesigned to improve overall
visual quality and pedestrian operations, including the following
specific changes: {a) reduce the width and number of proposed
lanes of El Camino Real; (b) include a minimum 10-foot wide
landscaped median and pedestrian refuge area in the cent~r median
of El Camino Real.
Mitigation measure 4~2-6(c) provides that if mitigation
measures 4.2-1(1}, 4.2-S(b) and 4.2-6{b) are all adopted, the
applicant st~ll be required to conduct a detailed study of traffic
progression and traffic signal coordination on El Camino Road and
prepare a signal coordination plan. The plan shall encompass
signalized intersections on El camino Real from Errbarcadero Road to
the proposed Sand Hill Road extension and must demonstrate that
northbound left-turn queues at both the Quarry/El Camino Real and
Sand Hill Road/El Camino Real intersection will not obstruct
northbound through lanes.
Mitigation measure 4. 2-6 (d) requires that large evergreen
shrubs or evergreen trees be incorporated in the final landscape
plan along the north edge of Quarry Road and other areas near ~he
corner of El Camino Real, in order to maintain some visual
screening of the parking lot areas from the new intersection during
winter months.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the identified impact to a less than significant level.
These tneasures provide for modifications that diminish the extent
of visual changes in the affected project area and for further
design improvements to ensure compatibility with the existing
visual character of the area. Mitigation measure 4 . 2-6 · {c) is
designed to offset any adverse traffic impacts which will result
from implementation of these measures~ With respect to mitigation
measure 4. 2-6 {a) , the Planning Commission considered the
alternative of eliminating the proposed retail building near Quarry
Road and El Camino and recommended against this alternative. The
Council also finds that relocation of this building is unnecessary
and would defeat one of the desig·n objectives of the Shopping
Center expansion plans, specifically to provide an improved
transition from the central shopping area of the Stanford Shopping
Center to El Camino Real and adjoining portions of the City. The
project conditions of approval implement the mitigation proposed in
mitigation measure 4. 2-6 (a) rather than the alternative. The
Council finds that this measure will mitigate the adverse impact
associated with the original design of the outlying building to a
less than significant level.
4.2-8 Visual disturbance from construction of the proposed
projects could have temporary adverse visual ~pacts.
Mitigation measure 4.2-8 requires that on-site staging and
storage of construction equipment and materials should be minimized
to reduce visual disturbance during construction. Equipment and
material storage that does occur on-site should be visually
6
~l1ac 0031:590
• •
screened. Graded areas should be watered regularly to minimize
fugitive dust.. Construction should be staged and scheduled to
minimize the duration of disturbance in each affected viewshed.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the adverse visual impact of project construction, but
will not reduce this ~ct to a less than significant level. The
adopted mitigation measure will limit the duration and visibility
of construction equipment and grading activities on the site, but
will not eliminate the significant unavoidable visual impact
necessarily associated with major construction activities on the
site. This impact therefore remains significant.
Project Areas Outside the City
The Council finds that the adoption and implementation of
these measures on portions of the project outside the City is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public
agencies, primarily the City of Menlo Park, and that these
mitigation measures can and should be adopted in the event that
project approvals are granted by Menlo Park. The Council also
recognizes, however, that in the event that Menlo Park approves the
project but does not implement the rec~~~nded mitigation measures,
sig1ificant adverse impacts could result.
4.2-9 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumulative
development in the Sand Hill Road Corridor, could adversely affect
the visual character of the corridor for viewers traveling on Sand
Bill Road.
The EIR recommended ~doption of mitigation measure 4.2-9 to
mitigate this identified cumulative impact~ Mitigation measure
4 • 2-9 requires that mit igat.ion measures 4. 2-1 (a ·1) be impl-emented
for all the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects. The Council has
adopted mitigation measure 4 .. 2-1 {h) and partially implemented
mitigation measure 4.2-l(j}, but has determined that implementation
of mitigation measures 4.2-l(I} and the narrowing of Sand Hill Road
to two lanes at the San Francisquito Creek crossing (mitigation
measure 4. 2-1 (j), are infeasible and undesirable for reasons
previously stated. The Council finds that the adopted measures
will lessen the project's contribution to cumulative visual impacts
along the Sand Hill Road corridor, but that these impacts will
remain significant. Due to the major change in visual character
associated with extending, widening and adding related improvements
to Sand Hill Road, these impacts would also remain significant even
with the adoption of the additional mitigation measures identified
in the EIR.
With respect to cumulative visual impact resulting from the
other Sand Hill Corridor projects; the additional project-specific
mitigation measures reco~~ended in mitigation measure 4.2-9 have
been adopted, partially adopted, or rejected as stated in the
findings for the Stanford West Apartments, Stanford West Senior
Housing and Stanford Shopping Center Expansion projects. To the
extent these measures have been adopted, they collectively will
7
97070lla.c 0031 590
• •
reduce the significant adverse cumulative visual impact of the Sand
Hill Corridor projects, but will not reduce the ~ct to a less
than significant level. This cumulative impact therefore remains
significant.
The Council recognizes that future development, to the extent
allowed in the Sand Hill corridor, will continue to add to the
significant cumulative visual impacts associated with the approved
projects.
Project Areas Outside the City
With respect to the project's contribution to cumulative
visual impacts within the City of Menlo Park~ the Council finds
that in the event the portions of the project within Menlo Park are
approved, the applicable provisions of recommended mitigation
measures 4.2-l(h) and {j) can and should be implemented by the
approving agency. If implemented, these measures would lessen the
cumulative visual impact but would not reduce it to a level of
insignificance.
4. 2-12 The combined visual affect of prop<,. sed projects could
adversely alter views within the El Camino Real viewshedo ·
Mitigation measure 4 .. 2-12 requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4~2-6(a-c) I discussed previously.
The recommended mitigation measures have been adopted as
described in the findings for Impact 4 .. 2-6. The Council finds that
adoption of these measuresf together with adoption of measures in
conjunction with the approval of the Stanford Shopping Center
Expansion, will reduce to insignificance the project's contribution
to cumulative visual impacts on the El camino Real viewshed for the
reasons stated in relation to Impact 4.2-6 ..
4.2-13 The proposed projects, in conjunction with cumulative
development, could generate light and glare from buildings and
roadways that could have adverse effects on nearby residents and
on-coming drivers along Sand Hill Road.
Mitigation measure 4.2-13 provides that interior and exterior
light sources associated with all of the approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects shall be shielded or directed in such a manner as
to prevent visibility of the light sources and to eliminate light
spillover beyond the perimeter of the proposed project. Specific
measures recommended in accordance with section 18.64.030 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code include the following:
(a) Exterior light fixtures on the housing buildings should
be mounted no higher than 15 feet at the rear of the
buildings.
(b) LiJhting of the building exterior and parking lot should
be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for
its purpose.
8
970702 lac 0031S90
• •
(c) Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated
signs, should be avoided.
(d) Timing devices should be considered for exterior and
interior lights in order to minimdze light glare at night
without jeopardizing security.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the project's contribution to potential cumulative light and glare
impacts to insignificance. While increased light and glare on
roadways is an unavoidable and expected effect of the project, the
recommended mitigation measures provide for avoidance of
unnecessary impacts from signs and lighting associated with the
project. The adopted mitigation measures, in conjunction with
landscaping which will reduce passage of light and glare from
roadways to residences, will have the effect of eliminating
substantial spillover of light from the project sites and will
therefore reduce any potential cumulative impact to a less than
significant level. This mitigation measure has also been
incorporated into the conditions of approval for other approved
Sand Hill Road Corridor projects and will therefore eliminate any
potential significant cumulative effect by confining the impacts of
each project to its own location. ·
Project A.reas Outside the City
Adoption and implementation of these measures on portions of
the project outside the City .is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies, primarily the City of
Menlo Park. The Council finds that the recommended mitigation
measures can and should be adopted in the event that project
approvals are granted by Menlo Park4 The Council also recognizes,
however, that in the event that Menlo Park approves the project but
does not implement the recommended mitigation measures, significant
adverse impacts could result.
4~3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.3-1 Implementation of the proposed projects would result in
damag·ing effects on important historic and/or prehistQric
archaeological resources.
Mitigation measure 4.3-1(b) requires that prior to development
the applicant shall conduct a data recovery program on all areas in
which construction is believed to have a potential to result in
significant archaeological impacts. The program shall consist of
an initial phase of intensive subsurface archaeological testing
meeting minimum standards specified in the EIR. Significant
resources encountered shall be subject to recovery, preservation
and study as provided in mitigation measure 4.3-l{c). All work
shall be subject to review and monitoring by an independent
archaeologist engaged by the City.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(c) requires manual excavation and
recovery of archaeological resources from any areas encountered
9
970702 lac 0031590
• •
during construction which are deter.mined to hold important
archaeological resources and for the recovery, preservation and
study of these resources. The measure also provides for ongoing
monitoring of construction activities in potentially sensitive
areas of the site and for preparation of further detailed
procedures to ensure protection and recovery of any significant
resources encountered in such areas. The plans shall include (a)
provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis, and curation; (b)
identification and coordination with most-likely Native American
descendants concerning monitoring and reburial of Native American
remains, if any are encountered; (c) plans for preparation of
technical reports; (d) analysis and preservation of artifacts and
documentation and analysis of non-recoverable site features. All
of the foregoing shall be performed in accordance with current
scientific and professional standards.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(f) provides that construction
activities involving substantial ground disturbance {greater than
12~ in depth) near any known archaeological site shall be subject
to monitoring.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l(g) provides that if previously
unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction~
work shall cease in the immediate area until qualified
archaeologists assess the significance of the resources and make
mitigation recommendations (e.g.~ manual excavation of the
immediate area), if warranted.
Mitigation measure 4.3-l{h) requires the applicant and
contractors to comply with the requirements of Section 7050.5(b) of
the California Health and Safety Code if Native American burials or
other possible Native American human remains are located during
construction. This code section requires that a Native American
Most Likely Descendant (determined in consultation with the Native
American Heritage Conunission) be notified within 24 hours and
appropriate provisions made for appropriate reburial. This and
related sections of the Public Resources Code also provide that
remains shall be protected from further construction work or
vandalism.
Mitigation measure 4. 3-1 (k) provides with ~espect to the
project that construction activities shall be subject to
archaeological monitoring in the area of the Sand Hill Road
Extension, and for road improvements in all other areas for which
a potentially significant impact has been identified, where ground
disturbance will exceed 24 inches below existing grade. Monitoring
m"l.y be conducted on an intermittent basis only where, in the
opinion of the applicant's archaeologist and the City's
archaeologist, soils are culturally sterile. Construction
personnel shall be required to contact the applicant's
archaeologist in the event that suspected cultural resources are
uncovered in the absence of a monitor
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the project's impacts on archaeological resources
10
97070llac 0031 ~90
• •
within the City to a less than significant level. Presently known
archaeological resources which may be affected by the project are
limited to an area close to the San Francisquito Creek bridge. The
adopted mitigatlon measures will ensure that all such resources
which cannot be avoided during construction activities will be
identified, removed and preserved for further study in accordance
with accepted scientific standards, ensuring no loss of scientific
or historical value of the resources. The adopted mitigation
measures also ensure that any additional~ presently unknown,
~rtant archaeological resources in areas affected by the project
will similarly be identified, removed and preserved. The adopted
measures also ensure that proper respect will be afforded any
burials and any other culturally important Native American remnants
which might be impacted by the project.
Project Areas Outside the City
Adoption and implementation of these measures on portions of
the project outside the City is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies, specifically the City of
~senlc Park and Counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo. The Council
finds that the above identified mitigation measures can and should
be adopted in t.he event that approvals are granted by these
agencies. Tne Council also recognizes, however, that in the event
that these agencies approve elements of the project within their
jurisdiction but do not implement the recommended mitigation
measures, significant adverse impacts will result.
Reiected Mitiaation Measure
The EIR also proposed an alternate w~tigation measure 4.3-l(a)
which has not been adopted by the City. ~litigation measure
4.3-l(a), as it relates to the project, would require that road and
bri.dge widening in the vicinity of San Francisquito Creek be
limited to the existing road surface area.
The Council finds that this mitigation measure is infeasible
and undesirable because the measure would effectively prohibit
widening of the roadway and bridge to four lanes and therefore fail
to achieve the basic objective of the project of providing
increased traffic capacity along s~~d Hill Road~ The Council·also
does not recommend adoption of this mitigation measure by Menlo
Park in conjunction with its approval of the bridge widening and
Sand Hill Road widening for these same reasons. Because alternate
mitigation measures are available and have been implemented to
reduce all potential impacts to insignificance, the Council finds
that the proposed mitigation measure is not justified in view of
its substantial adverse effects it would have on traffic in the
Sand Hill Road corridor. The Council recognizes that approval for
the bridge widening will also be required from the City of Menlo
Park, and Menlo Park may as a practical matter impose this
mitigation measure through its independent authority over the
project. The Council does not recommend that the City of Menlo
Park adopt this measure for the reasons stated above.
11
910702 Cal: 0031 SJO
• •
4.3·5 Impl.-.ntation of the prcpoaed project& could re•ult in
damaging effect• on the Stanford Convalescent Boae Gates.
Mitigation measure 4.3-S(b) provides that if preservation of
the stone entry gate pillars in their current location is not
feasible, the gates shall be moved on the site and incorporated
into the project's landscape plan.
This measure has been adopted in conjunction with approvals
granted for the Stanford West Senior Housing project. The Council
finds that adoption of this mitigation measure will lessen the
project's impact on the historically valuable stone gate pillars to
a less than significant level. This measure will preserve the
gates on the site to permit continued public recognition of the
entryway and to maintain their historic feeling and association
within the project area. The Council finds that preservation of
the gates in their current location is not necessary to mitigate
this impact.
Rejected MitigatiQn Measur~s
The EIR also proposed an alternate mitigation measure 4.3~5(a)
which has not been adopted by the City. !'-1itigation measure
4. 3-5 (a) w·ould require redesign of the entry to the Stanford West
Senior Housing Health Care Center and Ronald McDonald House to
pennit the Stone Entry Gates to be preserved where they are
presently situated,
The Council finds that this rnitiaation measure is infeasible
because it would uru1ecessarily disrupt~site plans for the Stanford
West Senior Housing project1 potentially resulting in loss of
additional trees and increased visual impacts from relocation of
access ways. The gates were not part of the original Stanford
estate and have been relocated from their original location near El
Camino Real to their current location. While the presence of the
gates are considered to be an important reflection of the area's
history, their location is not considered to be historically
significant. The alternate mitigation measure 4.3-5(b) prescribed
in the EIR has been adopted instead and will provide for
preservation of the pillars on the site by in~orporation into.the
landscape plans for the site and will avoid any significant adverse
impact.
4.3-6 The proposed projects, in conjunction with other
cumulative development projects in the San Prancisquito Creek
drainage, could result in damage or destruction of important
prehistoric and historic cultural resources.
Mitigation measure 4.3-6 recommends that all planning
jurisdictions within the San Francisquito Creek drainage implement
cultural resource testing and data recovery measures, similar to
those described in mitigation measure 4~3-1 for projects involving
development of sensitive cultural resource sites.
12
970702 lac 0031590
• •
The Council has adopted the recommended mitigation measures
for the SHRE/RRI project and all other approved Sand Hill Co::·ridor
projects. The Council finds that adoption of the recommended
project-specific measures will lessen the project's contribution to
the identified cumulative impacts to a less than significant level
and will also lessen the cumulative impact of the Sand Hill
Corridor projects collectively to a less than significant level~
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the project; however, the Council finds
that such measures can and should be considered in conjunction with
any future projects within the City. With respect to cumulative
impacts from future development projects outside of the City. the
Council finds that implementation of the recommended measures is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies
and that the agencies can and should impla~ent such measures to the
extent feasible. Because the nature and extent of potential
cumulative impact from future projects on archaeological resources
is presently speculati·ve and unknown, a.nd because the extent to
which other agencies can and will implement the recommended
measures is presently unkno~rn, the Council cannot detern".ine at tqis
time the extent to which the recorr .. mended measu:::-es will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures 1 i: implemented1
will lessen or avoid potential Clli'Ttulative visual impacts. The
Council therefore finds that this cumulative impact remains
potentially significant despite the adoption of available
mitigation measures by the City.
4.4 ~SPORTATION
Public Transit Service Impacts
4.4-l Public transit service could be affected by development
of the proposed projects.
Mitigation measure 4.4-l(a) requires that a new transit bus
passenger transfer and layover area (s) be located at a site
acceptable to Santa Clara Transportation Authority, SamTrans and
the City. The site will be located so that transit passenger
access to the Stanford Shopping Center will not be degraded, and1 if possible, improved~ This measure may be implemented by locating
new facility near the Shopping Center, or by modifying routes that
currently use the transfer facility to include a stop close to the
Shopping Center.
Mitigation measure 4.4-l(c) requires that all new1 relocated1 and removed transit stops and pullouts shall be incorporated into
a transit plan reviewed and approved by the City, SCCTA, and
SamTrans.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the identified impact to a less than significant level.
The EIR determined that the only potentially significant impacts of
the project on public transportation result from relocation or
13
970702 lac 0031590
• •
potential loss of transit stops and facilities. By requiring
replacement and possible improvement of the existing transfer and
layover area serving the Stanford Shopping Center, and requiring
review and approval by qualified transportation professionals of
the relocation of any other transit facilities affected by the
project, the adopted mitigation measures will avoid any reduction
in passenger access to the Stanford Shopping Center or any other
area affected by the project, and could result in improved access.
The conditions of approval of the project also incorporate
mitigation measures 4. 4-1 (b) and 4. 4 ~ 1 (d) • Mitigation measure
4.4-l(b) requires the applicant to provide Marguerite service to
the Sand Hill Road Corridor development project sites at a
frequency and capacity integrated with other residential and
employment sites served by the system. Mitigation measure 4.4-l(d)
requires the applicant to operate an on-call passenger shuttle
service to and from the Stanford West Senior Housing project. The
Council finds that the addition of the Marguerite shuttle service
to the Senior Housing project site will render the on-call shuttle
unnecessary, and the Council, therefore, will not require that this
additional measure be implemented. Although the EIR did not
conclude that the project would adversely affect the availability
of transit services to the Stanford West Apartments or Stanford
West Senior Housing, these mitigation measures will enhance the
availability of transportation services to these projects,
improving the overall functionality of the transportation system
served by the Sand Hill Road Extension and Related Roadway
Improvements.
Bicycl~ and Pedestrian Impacts
4. 4-2 Bicycle and/or pedestrian access and safety could be
affected by development of the proposed projects.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2(b) requires that Class II bike lanes
be provided on those portions of Sand Hill Road, Arboretum Road,
Vineyard Lane, Pasteur Drive 1 Stock Farm Road, and Quarry Road
which will be modified or reconstructed as part of the project.
The bike lanes shall meet City of Palo Alto design requirements as
designated by the Chief Transportation Official.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2 (c) requires that appropriate
pedestrian and bicycle crossing devices and markings be provided at
all signalized intersections modified or reconstructed as part of
the project. All devices and markings shall meet applicable design
standards in their respective jurisdiction. Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) design standards shall be observed at all
pedestrian crossings created or modified by the proposed projects.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2{d) requires the applicant to provide
a bicycle and pedestrian actuated crossing phase of El Camino Real
on the north side of the proposed Sand Hill Road intersection, if
the City Chief Transportation Official determines that the measure
is feasible and will not.have unacceptable effects on intersection
vehicular level of service.
14
97070llac 0031 S90
• •
Mitigation measure 4.4·2 (e) provides that for five years
following project construction, the project applicant will fund an
annual review of reported traffic accident data at the Sand Hill
Road/1~280 interchange to determine whether a significant increase
in bicycle/auto conflicts has occurred. If an increase is
documented, the applicant will work with Caltrans, the City of
Menlo Park and San Mateo County to design and obtain funding for
safety improvements required to minimize these conflicts.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2(f) requires that bicycle and
pedestrian facilities be constructed at the intersection of Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Junipero Serra Blvd./Alpine Road.
The proposed design will be reviewed and approved by the City of
Menlo Park Transportation Manager.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will avoid
the project~s potential adverse impacts on pedestrian and bicycle
travel and will in fact improve and enhance safe bicycle and
pedestrian travel in the project area. The adopted mitigation
measures, together with elements included in the project, will
extend bike lanes constructed to accepted safety standards along
the full length of Sand Hill Road affected by the project. ~he
adopted mitigation measures will also ensure construction of safe
and adequate pedestrian and bicycle crossings of all major roadways
affected by the project, thus actually improving existing
conditions for bicycle and pedestrian travel in the project area.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2(f) also requires that adequate bicycle and
pedestrian crossings be constructed at the Sand Hill Road/Santa
Cruz Avenue and Junipero Serra Blvd./Alpine Road intersections.
Mitigation measure 4.4-2(e) further requires the applicant to work
with responsible agencies to eliminate safety problems resulting
from increased bicycle and vehicle traffic at the Sand Hill
Road/I-280 intersection if such problems are determined to exist in
the future.
The Council recognizes that jurisdiction and-· responsibility
for L~lementation of these mitigation measures in areas beyond the
City's boundaries is vested in the City of Menlo Park. Approvals
for some intersection improvements may also be required from the
County of San Mateo and County of Santa Clarae The Council finds
that Menlo Park can and should adopt and implement the recommended
mitigation measures# but also recognizes that in the event that
Menlo Park does not approve elements of the SHRE/RRI project within
its jurisdiction or does not otherwise allow implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures, potentially significant adverse
impacts on pedestrian and vehicle travel could result along
portions of Sand Hill Road and intersections outside the City's
jurisdiction due to increases in traffic in these areas resulting
from the Sand Hill Corridor projects.
15
970702 lac 0031 S90
.... ---------------------------~---------~ ------~--------------
• •
4.4-7 DeYelop~aat c•f the propoaec! projects could degrade the
level of ••rvice of •tudy area interaectiona, and contribute to
iacrea•ed 1Dter•ection delay.
The EIR concluded that the SHRB/RRI project overall will
result in substantial benefits for local and regional traffic
circulation, but that changes in traffic travel patterns related to
the project and increases in traffic from the Sand Hill Road
Corridor projects collectively will result in significant adverse
changes in traffic conditions at a total of seven area
intersections, specifically:
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
El camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue
Junipero Serra Blvd./Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
Middlefield Road/Willow Road
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
The SHRE/RRI project alone, however, would have significant
adverse impacts on traffic levels at only fou.r ar~a intersection;s,
specifically:
Arboretum Road/Galvez Street
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
Middlefield Road/Willow Road
Sa.nd Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
The conditions of approval require the applica:'t: ~:'J c.;ontribute
to all of the following mitigation measures to lessen these impacts
and other impacts of the Sand Hill Corridor projects.
Arboretum Rggg/Galvez Street: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(a) requires
the applicant to install a traffic signal or other appropriate
traffic control device(s) at the intersection. of Arboretum
Road/Galvez Street, and pay the full cost of these improvements.
This measure shall be implemented when the intersection satisfies
appropriate signal warrants as determined by the Chief
Transportation Official~ In the event that the City and . the
applicant determine that use of a traffic circle or "roundabout"
will provide for the same or better LOS and safety as a traffic
signal, the traffic circle may be constructed at the applicant's
expense instead of a traffic signals or other traditional traffic
control device{s).
El Camino Real/Page Mill Road: Mitigation measure 4.4-7 (b)
requires the applicant to contribute a fair share of the costs of
the following planned improvements:
970102 Sac OOJl m
Add a southbound right turn lane;
Add a westbound right turn lane;
16
• •
Add a northbound right turn lane; and
Extend the westbound left turn lane by 100 feet.
These measures should be implemented when the intersection
approaches LOS F, as evaluated through periodic monitoring to be
carried out by the applicant on behalf of the City.
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenu~: Mitigation measure 4.4-7(c)
requires the applicant to pay a fair share of the costs of the
following improvements to the following improvements to the Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection:
Widen Sand Hill Road to add secJnd eastbound left turn
lane;
Widen Sand Hill Road to add second westbound left turn
lanei
Modify signal phasing;
Install an exclusive right: turn lane on the northbound
approach of Santa Cruz Avenue; and
Provide dual left turn lanes on both the nortr~ound and
southbound Santa Cruz Avenue approaches.
The applicant shall also pay the costs of installing an
exclusive right turn lane on the nortr.bound approach of Santa C:z.-uz
Avenue and providing dval left turn lanes on both the northbound
and southbound Santa Cruz Avenue approaches.
Conditions l.c and 12 of the project conditions of approval
provide that the applica.~t shall advance funds to pay the full
costs of these improvements if the City of Menlo Park and/or the
County of San Mateo, with respect to any improvements in that
jurisdiction, enters into an agreement to reimburse the applicant
for costs in excess of its fair share. If no reimbursement
agreement is adopted, the applicant shall pay its fair share
(subject to limitations based on engineering cost estimates} based
on traffic attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor projects.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will not occur until
approvals are obtained from the City of Menlo Park andior the
County of San Mateo, as applicable.
Junipero Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Sapta Cruz Avenue: Mitigation
measure 4.4-7(d) requires the applicant to pay a fair share of the
costs of the following improvements to the Junipero Serra
Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection mandated by
the Menlo Park General Plan or recommended in the EIR:
9707021ac 0031590
Widen northbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane;
Install an additional southbound left-tum lane.
17
• •
Conditions l.c and 12 of the project conditions of approval
provide that the applicant shall advance funds to pay the full
costs of these improvements if the City of Menlo Park and/or the
County of San Mateo, as applicable, enters into an agreement to
reimburse the applicant for costs in excess of its fair share. If
no reimbursement agreement is adopted, the applicant shall pay its
fair share (subject to limitations based on engineering cost
estimates) based on traffic attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor
projects. Implementation of this ~~tigation measure will not occur
until approvals are obtained from the City of Menlo Park and/or the
County of San Mateo, as applicable.
Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road: Mitigation measure 4~4·7(e),
identifies a number of improvements which would be necessary to
mitigate cumulative traffic impacts at this intersection, including
the following:
Add a second southbound left turning lane.
Restripe eastbound approach.
Modify signal phasing 1 including a leading left turn
phase in the signal phasing for the north and south
directions.
The timing of these improvements will be determined by the
City of Menlo Park, through periodic monitoring and/or through
subsequent environmental impact analysis and documentation.
Condition l.f of the project conditions of approval partially
implements this mitigation measure by requiring that the applicant
shall either make signal timing improvements sufficient to return
traffic levels of service at this intersection to level of service
D, or contribute its fair share of the costs to construct the
recommended intersection improvements. This obligation would not
be triggered until current level of service falls · . .to E or worse.
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and ~unipero Serra Blvd,/A1pine
Road: Mitigation measure 4.4-7 (h) provides that the applicant
shall conduct an operational analysis of the Sand Hill Road/Santa
Cruz Avenue and Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersections
to identify the appropriate combination of roadway and traffic
signal improvements necessary to improve operation to LOS D during
peak hours, if feasible.
The EIR also recommends that the following w~tigation measures
be implemented to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts at specified
intersections within the City of Menlo Park~ but does not provide
for direct participation by the applicant in implementation of
these mitigation measures.
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue: Mitigation measure 4.4-7 (f)
recommends that the following improver.lents to the El Camino
Real/Ravenswood Avenue intersection be completed as prescribed in
the City of Menlo Park's general plan:
18
970702 lac 0031 S90
• •
Widen northbound approach to add third northbound through
lane.
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane.
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right turn
lane.
El Camino Real/valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue: Mitigation
measure 4.4-7(g) recommends that the following improvements to the
El Camino Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue intersection be
completed as prescribed in the City of Menlo Park's general plan:
Restripe northbound approach to add third northbound
through lane.
Restripe southbound approach to add third southbound
through lane.
Widen westbound approach to add exclusive right t~rn
lane.
Final design shall Include provisions for bicycle
traffic.
In addition, the EIR recommends that signal phasing at this
intersection be modified to include split phasing in the east/west
direction and a leading left turn phase in the north/south
direction.
The Council finds that these adopted mitigation measures, if
implemented, will lessen the project's impacts on traffic at the
four significantly affected intersections to a l~ss than
significant level, and will also substantially lessen the impact of
the project's contribution to cumulative traffic at other
intersections significantly affected by the Sand Hill Corridor
projects collectively. Mitigation measures 4.4-?(a)-{e) re~~ire
the applicant to pay all or a fair share of the costs of physical
improvements necessary to enable each of these affected
intersections to serve anticipated cumulative traffic demands at
acceptable levels of service~ Mitigation measure 4.4-7(h} also
provides for identification of appropriate additional intersection
improvements should the City of Menlo Park elecl to achieve a
higher level of service at the Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and
Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersections. The Council
recognizes that final authority to approve those portions of the
SHRE/RRI project located outside the City, and to approve and
implement the identified mitigation measures at three of the four
intersections significantly affected by the project, is vested in
public agencies other than the City, specifically the City of Menlo
Park (Sand Hill Road widening and related improvements in Menlo
Park, mdtigation measure 4.4-?(c), Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
and mitigation measure 4.4-7(e), Middlefield Avenue/Willow Road);
19
970702 lac 0031 590
• •
County of Santa Clara (mitigation measure 4. 4 · 7 (a), Arboretum
Road/Galvez Street intersection) ; and the County of San Mateo
(mitigation measure 4.4-7(c), Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
intersection) . Responsibility and authority for implementing the
recommended mitigation measures at the additional intersections
cumulatively impacted by the ~reject is also vested in other public
agencies, specifically the City of Menlo Park (mitigation measures
4.4-7(f), El camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue, and 4.4-7(g), El Camino
Real/Valparaiso Avenue/Glenwood Avenue) and 4. 4-7 (d) Junipero
Serra Boulevard/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue) . The Council finds
that the identified mitigation measures can and should be approved
and implemented by these agencies. However, the Council also
recognizes that in the event that portions of the project located
the City of Menlo Park are not approved or that if one or more of
the listed mitigation measures are not approved and implemented by
the appropriate responsible agencies, the project will result in
significant adverse impacts on the Arboretum Road/Galvez Street,
MiddlefiE.•ld Road/Willow Road and/or Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz
Avenue intersection{s), and will contribute to significant impacts
at other intersections c~rnulatively affected by the Sand Hill
Corridor projects. Because it cannot presently be determined if or
when the appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented by ~he
respective responsible agencies, these impacts are considered by
the Council to be potentially significant.
4 .. 4-8 Construction activities could lead to both temporary
disruption of transportation system operation, as well as to
permanent damage to elements of the system such as pavement and
bridges.
Mitigation measure 4.4-B(a) requires the applicant to provide
adequate off-street parking for all construction-related vehicles
throughout the construction period. If adequate parking cannot be
provided on the construction sites, a satellite parking area shall
be designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to· transfer
construction workers t.o the job sites.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(b) provides that construction
activities related to the project are prohibited from substantially
limiting pedestrian access (e.g, by blocking pedestrian routes),
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto and/or Caltrans.
JUly approval shall require submittal and approval of specific
construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to
a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4-4.8(c) provides that the applicant shall
be prohibited from limiting bicycle access (e.g. by blocking or
restricting existing routes) while constructing the project,
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto and/or Caltrans
or the City of Menlo Park (depending upon the jurisdiction of the
requested action) . Any approval will require submittal and
approval of specific construction management plans to mitigate the
specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
20
970702 be OOl 1S90
• •
Mitigation mea,•ure 4 .. 4·8 (d.) provides that the applicant shall
be required to r ..:.~ohibit or limit the number of construction
material deliver~es from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 4 p.m. to 6
p.m-on weekdays.
Mitigatio·-. measure 4 .4·8 (e) provides that the applicant shall
be required :o prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees frcm arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6 p~m~
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(f) requires that all
construction-related equipment and materials shall be delivered and
removed on truck routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto and
Menlo Park. Heavy construction vehicles shall be prohibited from
accessing the sites from other routes.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(g) requires the applicant to repair
any structural damage to public roadways, returning any damaged
sections to original structural condition. The effectiveness of
this measure shall be guaranteed by requiring surveys of road
conditions before and after construction.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(h) prohibits the applicant from
limiting access to public transit (e.g. by relocating or
restricting access to bus stops or transfer facilities), and from
limiting movement of public transit vehicles, without prior
approval from the Santa Clara Transit Agency or other appropriate
jurisdiction. Any approval will require submittal of specific
construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to
a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measure 4.4-8(X) provides that in lieu of
mitigation measures 4.4-S{a) through (h), the project applicant may
prepare detailed construction impact mitigation plans for approval
by the City of Palo Alto Chief Transportation Official and City of
Menlo Park Transportation Manager prior to eommencing any
constrJction activities with potential transportation impacts. The
plan must address all aspects of construction traffic management
necessary to eliminate or reduce transportation impacts to
acceptable levels.
Mitigation measure 4.4-S(k) requires the applicant to identify
and implement measures to ensure that construction activities do
not reduce roadway capacity during major athletic events or other
special events involving substantial numbers of visitors to the
campus~ This measure may be implemented by requiring special
supplemental permits for Stanford-sponsored events during
significant construction periods, or by other means.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential construction phase traffic and
transportation impacts to a less than significant level. These
measures provide for comprehensive planning for construction
traffic and establish standards, criteria and implementing measures
which will ensure that significant interference with vehicle,
21
970"//llac 0031 ~90
.... -------------------------------• •
bicycle, pedestrian and emergency vehicle access is avoided during
all ph~ees of construction.
Project Areas Outside the City
Adoption and implementation of the applicable reconrnended
measures on portions of the project outside the City is within the
jurisdiction ~~d responsibility of other public agencies, primarily
the City of Menlo Park~ The Council finds that the recommended
mitigation measures can and should be adopted in the event that
approvals are granted for those portions of the project outside the
City. The Council also recognizes, however, that in the event that
Menlo Park approves the project but does not implement the
recommended mitigation measures, significant adverse impacts could
result.
4.5 AIR OYALITY
4. 5-l The PM-,0 generated during the construction of the proposed
projects could be harmful to nearby pollutant-sensitive land uses.
Mitigation measure 4&5·1 requ.ires the applicant to implem~nt
a construction phase program which includes the following measures
to reduce generation of particulate matter on the project site
during construction:
Water all active construction areas at least twice a day,
or as needed to prevent visible dust plumes from blowing
off-site.
Use tarpaulins or other effective covers for on-site
storage piles and for haul trucks on public streets.
Pave, apply water three times daily~ or apply (non-toxic)
soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads~· parking
areas, and staging areas during construction~
Sweep all paved access routes, parking areas~ and staging
areas daily (preferably with water sweepers} .
Sweep streets daily {preferably with water sweepers) if
visible amounts of soil material is carried onto public
streets.
If the working area of any construction site exceeds four
acres at any one time, implement the following additional measures:
970702 lac 0031 S90
Apply (non-toxic)
construction areas.
soil stabilizers to inactive
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic)
soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
Limit construction site vehicle speed to 15 mph on
unpaved areas.
22
• •
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible~
If the working area of any construction site is located near
any sensitive receptors, implement the following measures in
addition to those listed above:
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed
25 mph.
Tne last mitigation would be applicable to the Sand Hill Road
widening where it passes the 14 single family homes in Menlo Park
between Santa Cruz Avenue and Oak Avenue.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified potential adverse impact from construction phase
dust and particulate matter to a less than significant level.
Implementation of twice daily watering has been shown to reduce
construction site PM10 emissions by at least 50 percent. This
practice, in conjunction with the other listed measures, will
reduce PM10 emissions during construction to less than the BAAQMD
threshold of significance of 80 lbs/day for all anticipated
construction activity.
Project Areas Outside the City
Adoption and implementation of the applicable recommended
measures on portions of the project out.side the City is withi.n the
jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies, primarily
the City of Menlo Park. The Council finds that the rec!li-nmended
mitigation measures can and should be adopted in the event that
approvals are granted for those portions of the project outside the
City. The Council also recognizes, however, that iti. the event that
Menlo Park approves the project but does not implement the
recommended mitigation measures, significant adverse impacts could
result. ~
4.5-2 ROG, NOx, and ~0 emissions generated by motor vehicles
and residential stationary sources associated with the proposed
projects would exceed the 80 lbs/day threshold and could biDder
regional and local attainment of State ozone and PX,0 standards.
Mitigation measure 4. S-2 (a) requires the City to implement
mitigation measure 4.4-2{a), which provides that final design for
bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Stanford West
Apartments and Senior Housing sites shall be reviewed to ensure the
circulation system ·will function as a part of regional or
inter-city bicycle and pedestrian connections, thereby promoting
increased use of bicycles or pedestrian travel by area residents.
Mitigation measure 4.5-2(c) requires the City to implement
mitigation measure 4~4-1, discussed above.
The EIR concludes that the project will have no significant
adverse effect on air pollution emissions, but that the Sand Hill
23
970702 lac 0031 S90
----------------------------------• •
Road Corridor projects collectively would produce emissions which
would exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The Council finds
that this cumulative air quality impact is significant.
4.5-4 Cumulative daily traffic along major roadways in the
project and study areas would emit more NO., and PJfo with the
tmplementation of the Sand Bill Road Projects, but emissions of ROG
would decrease.
The EIR found that the Sand Hill Read Corridor projects, would
collectively contribute to significant cumulative increases of
emissions of NOX and ~0 in the project area, but that the SHRE/RRI
project, by improving traffic capacity and sei:Vice, and r,educing
congestion and dela.ys in the project area, would actually decrease
total anticipated emissions of NOx by 38 lbs per day and emissions
of ROG by 249 lbs per day, thus resulting in a beneficial net air
quality impact. The project will also result in a
less-than-significant contribution of 56 lbs/day of PM10 to
cumulative PM10 emissions.
The EIR did not identify any feasible mitigation measures for
reducing cumulative air quality impacts associated with otl';ter
development and cumulative traffic increases in the project area.
CUmulative traffic-related air pollution emissions are regulated
through means beyond the City's jurisdiction and control.
Individual vehicle emissions and automotive fuels are subject to
regulation only by state or federal government. Regional traffic
levels are also heavily influenced by past and future planning and
land use decisions over which the City has no control. The Council
therefore finds that no additional feasible mitigation measures are
presently available to the City to mitigate this cumulative impact,
due to increases in regional traffic, and legal authority and
responsibility, if any, for feasible mitigation measures is vested
in other agencies beyond the City's control. The Council therefore
finds that the identified cumulative impact is significanto
4s.6 NOISE
4. 6-1 The noise genera ted during the construction of the
proposed projects could be disruptive to nearby noise-sensitive
land uses.
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(a) provides that construction
activities will be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and if weekend work is necessary, to the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and to the hours of
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(b) provides that construction
equipment shall be outfitted and maintained with noise reduction
devices (i.e., mufflers, enclosures for stationary equipment, etc.)
to obtain at least an average 10 dBA reduction shown feasible in
Table 4.6-5.
24
97070llac 0031 S90
• •
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(c) provides that stationary noise
sources (e.g., compressors, concrete mixers, etc.) shall be located
on portions of the sites furthest away from residential and other
noise-sensitive areas, and that acoustic shielding shall be used
with such equipment.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will
substantially lessen construction phase noise impacts on
surrounding residents and visitors within the City, but will not
reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The measures
will reduce noise generated by construction activities and will
eliminate construction noise during normal sleeping hours.
However, significant noise impacts will remain due to inherent
noise generated by large scale construction activity and heavy
equipment.
Project Areas Outside the City
With respect to those portions of the project located beyond
the City's bo~'"'ldaries, the EIR recommends the adoption of the above
mitigation measures 4,6-l{a) ~ {b) and {c) and also recommends the
following additional measure:
Mitigation measure 4.6-1(d) provides that where construction
of Sand Hill Road requires work in the road segment fronted by
homes between Oak and Santa Cruz Avenues, temporary noise barriers
shall be erected to protect the residents.
The Council finds that the adoption and implementation of
these measures outside the City of Palo Alto's boundaries is within
the jurisdiction and responsibility of ·other public agencies,
primarily the City of Menlo Park, and that these mitigation
measures can. and should be adopted by the responsible agency in the
event that approvals are granted for those portions of the project
located within the respective jurisdictions of these agencies* The
Council also recognizes, howeverf that in the event that these
responsible agencies approve the project but do not implen1ent the
recommended mitigation measures, significant adverse noise impacts
would result.
4. 6-3 Traffic generated by the proposed projects and other
cuaulative developments and the traffic accommodated by the
proposed roadway improvements would impact existing and proposed
residential and other sensitive land uses adjacent to roadways in
the project and study areas.
Mitigation measure 4.6-3(b} requires the applicant to
construct a landscaped buffer strip with at least a 3-foot-high
ber.m along Sand Hill Road between Stanford Avenue and Oak Avenue in
conjunction with irr.plementation of the Sand Hill Road widening and
realignment between Santa Cruz and Oak Avenues.
Mitigation measure 4.6-3(c) requires the applicant to
construct a soundwall 6 feet high or higher between Santa Cruz
Avenue and Stanford Avenue in conjunction with implementation of
25
910702 lal: 0031590
• •
the sand Hill Road widening to reduce noise from traffic increases
at the nearby intersection~
Mitigation measure 4.6-3(d), as modified by Condition l.g of
the project conditions of approval, requires the applicant to
monitor noise increases in residences in the designated areas along
Sand Hill Road where the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects may be
responsible for more than sot of potential increases in
traffic-related noise. If noise increases are detected, the
applicant shall be responsible for the costs of measures such as
additional insulation, double-glazed windows, or individual
soundwalls as determined necessary by acoustic study to return
interior noise levels in these residences to pre~project levels or
to 45 dBa. Residents may also contribute any further funds
necessary to further reduce interior noise levels to acceptable
levels.
The Council finds that these rn.itigation measures, if
implemented, will substantially lessen significant cumulative
traffic -I-elated noise impacts along the Sand Hill Road corridor
although these measures will not necessarily reduce cumulative
noise impacts to a less than significant level for every residence
affected by the project. Mitigation measure 4.6-3(d) provides for
a fair share contribution by the applicant to the costs of
physically upgrading affected residences with noise mitigation
measures. Mitigation measures 4.6-3{b) and 4.6-3(c) provide for
construction of physical barriers to reduce noise to acceptable
levels at protected residences. The adopted mitigation measure
4. 3-6 (d) will impose responsibility for necessary monitoring of
actual noise increases on the applicant and also imposes
responsibility on the applicant to pay a share of actual mitigation
costs in proportion to the applicant's responsibility for these
i.mpacts where the Sand Hill Corridor projects are the predominant
cause of cumulative traffic-related noise impacts~ The Council
does not. believe that the applicant can or equitably should be held
responsible for more than a fair share of the cost's of mitigating
these potential cumulative noise impacts~ Revisions made by the
City to mitigation measure 4.3-6(d) are intended to strengthen the
measure by fixing responsibility for noise monitoring on the
applicant, and to also amend the measure to provide that ·the
applicant shall be financially responsible only for a fair share of
the costs of implementing the mitigation measure. The Council
recognizes that mitigation measure 4.6-3{d), as adopted, will not
result in lessening of cumulative noise impacts at locations at
which less than 50% of the cumulative traffic-related noise
increase is attributable to the Sand Hill Corridor projects. The
Council also recognizes that since implementation of mitigation
measure 4.6-3(d) requires the cooperation of affected homeowners,
the physical improvements necessarJ to reduce noise levels at some
affected residences to acceptable levels w~y not be constructed by
choice of the owner. The Council therefore recognizes that
notwithstanding adoption of the identified mitigation measures,
cumulative traffic-related noise impacts may remain significant for
some residences affected by the projects.
26
• •
With respect to mitigation measures 4.6-3(b) and 4.6-l(c),
which will mitigate noise impacts on certain residences in Menlo
Park, the Council further recognizes that although the conditions
of approval require the applicant to accept responsibility for
implementation of these mitigation measures, approval for
implementation of these measures must be obtained from the City of
Menlo Park. The Council finds that implementation of these
mitigation measures can and should be appravt~ by the City of Menlo
Park. The Council also recognizes, however, that in the event that
approval for L~lementation of these measures is not obtained from
Menlo Park, affected residences in Menlo Park would experience
significant Clli~ulative traffic-related noise impacts due to
increased cumulative traffic on Sand Hill Road.
4,7 BIO~QGICAL RESOVRCES
4$7-1 Implementation of the proposed projects would result in
loss of trees and associated wildlife h&bitat.
Mitigation measure 4. 7 ·1 (a) reqtlires that nat ~.ve trees re..-;oved
for the projects shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 on a per acre
basis by the same species from locally collected stock.. and
provides for additional replanting if suDlival rates fa11. below 80
percent.
Mitigation measure 4.7-l{b) requires ttJ.at non-native land.'3cape
trees removed for the projects be replaced on a two-to-one basis.
Mitigation measure 4. 7·1 (c) provides that-the City shall
contract with an independent arborist to (a) review plans to
provide for maximum retention of trees and necessary additional
tree protection measures; b} monitor project construction ; and c)
recommend changes in the tree removal plan as necessary during
construction.
Mitigation measure 4.7-l(e} requires that ali' trees adjacent
to project construction areas which are not removed will be avoided
and protected according to specified procedures incorporated into
all construction and/or demolition contracts.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 7-l(g) provides that native trees removed
from natural riparian habitats shall be replaced in accordance with
mitigation measure 4.7-l{a) in open space areas adjacent to San
Francisquito Creek, either in portions of the abandoned golf course
and temporary bridge construction disturbance areas, and/or
adjacent to the Stanford West Apartments and Senior Housing sites.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's long and intermediate term impacts on trees and
related wildlife habitat within the City's jurisdiction to less
than significant levels. These measures will also substantially
lessen but will not avoid significant adverse short term impacts
( 0-10 years) to trees and related wildlife habitat within the
City's jurisdiction. These measures provide for protection of as
many trees as possible during project construction and replacement
27
970702lac 0031590
• •
of all trees removed as a result of the project at a greater than
1-1 ratio. These mitigation measures will therefore eventually
result in replacement of all trees and related habitat with new
trees and habitat of equal or greater value. However, because it
will take a number of years for replacement trees to reach a level
of maturity similar to those being removed, there will be an
unavoidable short-term decline in quality of trees and related
habitat value in the project area as a result of the project.
Project Areas Outside the City
With respect to those portions of the project located outside
the City's boundaries, the EIR recommended adoption of the above
mitigation measures 4.7-4(a), (b), (c), (e) and (g) and also the
following two additional measures:
Mitigation measure 4.7-l(d) provides that mitigation for loss
of the large coast live oak on the Stanford University golf course
shall be determined by the City of Men1o Park in accordance with
its ordinance governing removal of "heritage" trees.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 7-l(f) provides that the large elderberry
tree near existing Tee # 4 of the Stanford University golf course
shall be preserved, fenced and protected from construction impacts
by following the recommendations in Mitigation Measure 4.7-l{d).
These measures shall be accomplished as part of comprehensive
riparian and oak woodland mitigation and monitoring program as
specified under Mitigation Measure 4.7-3.
The Council finds that adoption and implementation of these
mitigation measures for elements of the project outside the City of
Palo Alto's boundaries is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies, specifically the City of
Menlo Park and County of Santa Clara, and that these mitigation
measures can and should be adopted by these public agencies in the
event that approvals are granted for those portions-of the project
located within the respective jurisdictions of these agencies. The
Council recognizes, however, that in the event these mitigation
measures are not adopted by the responsible agencies, significant
adverse impacts will result.
4~7-2 Construction of the proposed projects would result in
tree removals that could directly destroy nests, eggs and Lmmature
birds, and would remove future nesting habitat for birds, including
sensitive species such as raptors and migrating songbirds.
Mitigation measure 4.7-2(a) provides that in order to avoid
the nesting season of raptors and sensitive songbirds, tree
removals shall not take place between February 15 and June 30,
unless otherwise determined by the California Department of Fish
and Game {CDFG) on a case-by-case basis.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-2 (b) provides that if tree removal
between January 1 and February 15 is required, a pre-construction
survey shall be conducted to identify the presence, or lack
28
970702 lac 0031590
• •
thereof, of nests of raptors. If nests are identified, CDFG shall
be contacted and appropriate protocols for nest relocation shall be
implemented. If relocation of occupied, viable nests is not
feasible, construction shall be delayed and the tree left
undisturbed until completion of nesting activity~
Mitigation measure 4.7-2(e) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-l(a)-(f) and 4.7-4(a)· (c) (tree replacement
and riparian habitat replacement), discussed above.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's impacts on nesting birds within the City to a less
than significant level. These measures will avoid any direct
destruction of nests and provide for eventual replacement or
enhancement of all nesting habitat lost. While there will be a
short ter.m loss of nesting habitat for all bird species and short
and intermediate tei"m loss o.f nesting habitat for raptors, there
are sufficient alternate nesting sites in the area that this impact
will not have any significant adverse effect on overall nesting
opportunities or on bird populations.
Project Areas Outside the Ci t_y
With respect to those portions of the project located outside
the City, the Council finds that the adoption and implementation of
the foregoing mitigation measures is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies, specifically the City of
Menlo Park and County of Santa Clara, and that these mitigation
measures can and should be adopted by these public agencies in the
event that approvals are granted for those portions of the project
located within the respective jurisdictions of these agencies. The
Council recognizes, however, that in the event these mitigation
measures are not adopted by the responsible agencies, significant
adverse impacts will result.
4.7-4 The proposed widening of the Sand Bill Road Bridge would
result in loss of riparian vegetation and associated habitat values
and would encroach urban development closer to the San Prancisquito
Creek corridor.
Mitigation measure 4.7-4(a) requires that removal of riparian
vegetation during construction shall be confined to the minimal
area necessary and specifies additional measures to protect habitat
values, including
970702 lac 0031590
Compliance with mitigation measure 4.7-1;
Plans to minimize impacts to riparian habitats from
bridge construction shall be prepared to the satisfaction
of a creek restoration specialist. Replacement of wing
walls with crib walls or large rocks/boulders that would
allow planting of native riparian shrubs and trees will
be considered;
29
___ ............ ---------------------------
• •
Construction staging areas and access roads shall be
located away from sensitive riparian habitats to the
extent practicable;
Damage to riparian trees shall be minimized by installing
temporary barrier fencing;
No disturbance will be allowed within the drip lines of
trees to be avoided;
No fencing, signs, electrical linest etc. shall be
attached to existing trees;
The project shall avoid an unusually large blue
elderberry adjacent to the Stanford University Golf
Course Hole #4; [The project plans indicate that the
elderberry would be avoided.]
Recommendations in the arborist's report to avoid damage
to tree roots shall be implemented.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-4 (b) provides for preparation qnd
implementation of a detailed mitigation plan where removal of
riparian vegetation cannot be avoided. The mitigation plan shall
provide for replacement of riparian trees, understory shrubs, and
habitat values caused by construction of the new bridge and shall
be developed in consultation with CDFG. Additional creek
restoration measures will be developed as appropriate in
coordination with CDFG, Coyote Creek Riparian Station {CCRS) , and
Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) to allow for
increased structural diversity in the channel through strategic
placement of logs and other natural features. A general clean-up
of the creek and bank stabilization and erosion control efforts
should be included. A ma.intenance plan for temporary irrigation of
plantings and control of non-native plant species ·shall be
developed. This plan shall include minimum performance criteria of
80' for survivability at the end of a minimum 5-year period. Plant
materials used in mitioation shall be confined tu California native
species propagated from seeds or cuttings collected in the riparian
corridor of San Francisquito Creek.
~tigation measure 4.7-4(c) Sand Hill Road shall be realigned
up to 40 feet southwards to !nore closely coincide with the bounds
of the existing Stanford Shopping Center parking lot where it
approaches El Camino Real.
The Council finds that ado~tio~ of these measures will lessen
the project's impacts on r1par~an habitaL to a less than
significant level. The adopted mitigation rneas\.1res provide for a
number of specific measures to avoid impacts on rip~rian habitat to
the extent possible and provide for replacement and restoration of
riparian habitat destroyed by construction activities. These
measures will eliminate all significant impacts to the riparian
habitat zone in the area of the Sand Hill Road extension. While
perman.ent loss of a small area of riparian habitat in the area of
30
91'01021K OOJ 1 S90
• •
the Sand Hill Road bridge widening is unavoidable when this portion
of the project is connenced, the adopted measures will reduce
damage to a less than significant level by min~izing the amount of
riparian habitat affected and providing for permanent restoration
of all riparian habitat incidentally affected by construction
activities.
Project Areas Outside the City
The Council recognizes that construction of the San
Francisquito bridge widening will require approval from the City of
Menlo Park and that approval and full implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures will also require approval and
cooperation of the City of Menlo Park. The Council finds that in
the event that the City of Menlo Park grants necessary approvals
for the bridge widening, Menlo Park can and should adopt the
recommended mitigation measures. In the event 6 however, that
necessary approvals for the bridge widening are not granted by
Menlo Park! or tl:at Menlo Park declines to approve or permit the
implementation of the above mitigation measures which have been
made conditions of the City of Palo Alto's approval of the project,
the bridge widening will not be authorized to proceed by the City
and the identified potentially significant impacts of the bridge
widening on riparian habitat will not occur.
4.7~5 Construction-related noise and human activity for the
proposed projects could create impacts to native wildlife species.
Mitigation measure 4.7-5 prohibits construction activities
within 50-feet of riparian habitats along San Francisquito Creek
during the nesting season (February 15 ~ June 30) p unless otherwise
determined on a case-by-case basis by the CDFG.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential noise and disturbance impacts on· -wildlife
to a less than significant level~ This potential impact will occur
only in the area of the San Francisquito Creek bridge widening.
The adopted mitigation measure will ensure that const:cuction
activity does not disrupt mating or nesting activities of birds in
this area. While some t~-rnporary disruption of movement or feed,.ing
activities of other species may occur in this area during allowed
construction period, this temporary disturbance will not be
sufficient to have any long-term effects, such as loss of feeding
or mating opportunities, on species or individuals within the area.
Project Areas Outside the City
The Council recognizes that approval for the bridge widening
project must also be obtained from the City of Menlo Park and that
adoption of the recommended mitigation measures for construction
activities within Menlo Park is within the responsibility and
authority of Menlo Park. The Council finds that in the event that
Menlo Park grants approval for the bridge widening, Menlo Park can
and should adopt the recommended mitigation measure. However,
because the timing of construction activities for the bridge
31
970702 * 0031 ~90
• •
widening will as a practical matter be subject to conditions
imposed by the City in conjunction with its approval of the
project, the Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
by the City will avoid the identified potential significant impact
of the bridge widening whether or not the recommended mitigation
measure is also adopted as a condition of project approval by Menlo
Park.
4.7-6 During construction, runoff fro. the proposed projeeta
could adversely affect aquatic life, inclu~ng sensitive antaal
species, in San Praneisquito Creek due to erosion and aed'imentation
from disturbed areas.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 7-6 requires implementation of mitigation
measures 4.9-l(a)-(c), which are discussed in greater detail in
connection with Impact 4.9-1. Generally, these measures require
the applicant to prepare and comply with a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (~swpppn; which includes appropriate specific
measures to reduce or eli.minate potential erosion and sedimentation
impacts.
This potential impact results from the bridge widening elem~nt
of SHRE/RRI project only. The Council finds that adoption of the
identified mitigation measures will lessen che project's potential
runoff impacts on aquatic life to a less than significant level.
The adopted mitigation measures require the preparation and
compliance with a SWPPP, which will include specific measures to
prevent excessive sediment or pollution runoff which might result
in significant adverse effects on aquatic life or habitat values in
San Francisquito Creek.
Project Areas Outside the City
The Council recognizes that approval for the bridge widening
element of the project must also be obtained from the City·of Menlo
Park and that adoption of mitigation measures for construction
activities within Menlo Park is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of Menlo Park. The Council finds that in the event
that Menlo Park grants approval for the bridge widening~ Menlo Park
can and should adopt the recommended mitigation measures. Because
the bridge widening is unlikely to be approved by Menlo · Park
separate from its approval for the widening of Sand Hill Road to
four lanes and because preparation and implementation of a SWPPP is
required by state law for all major constru.ction projects, the
Council also finds that there is no significant potential that
significant unavoided impacts on aquatic life in San Francisquito
Creek will occur as a result of the project.
4. 7-7 Installation of the Sand Hill Road bridge widening
project could adversely ~act aquatic life, including sensitive
species.
Mitigation measure 4.7-7(a) requires that specific measures be
taken to ensure that the bridge widening project will not create a
long-term obstacle to upstream steelhead migration. If it is
32
97070llac 0031 590
• •
determined that the stream topography has not been adequately
restored after construction, the applicant will be required to take
further action to ensure adequate passage under the direction of
CDFG.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-7 (b) requires all in·· channel
construction to occur during a dry periods {previous to winter
rains) , or with appropriate cofferdams or other dewatering measures
subject to the approval of CDFG. In no case will in~ channel
construction occur during the rainy period (approximately October
15 to May 15) if construction would endanger migrating and breeding
aquatic species, or disrupt migration or breeding.
Mitigation measure 4.7·7(c) provides that the bridge
construction area shall be surveyed for California red-legged frogs
and northwestern pond turtles prior to construction, in accordance
with CDFG survey protocols (Appendix I) . If frogs or turtles are
found, specific mitigation measures will be implemented to protect
these species. These measures could include: (1) collection and
relocation of frog adults and larvae and turtles to suitable
locations upstrearn immediately prior to construction, and (2}
post-construction habitat enhancement of the site for turtles ~:.d
frogs4 Enhancement measures would include removal of non-native
trees and shrubs, replacement with native woody riparian species
such as willow, and provisions for physical improvements to the
site for those species such as installation of basking logs for
pond turtles.
Hitigation measure 4.7-7{d) requires the applicant to comply
with applicable terms and mitigation measures established by the
Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement negotiated with CDFG.
Mitigation measure 4. 7-7 {e) requires implementation of all
provisions of mitigation measures 4.7-5 and 4.7-6 applicable to the
project.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the potential impacts of bridge widening on aquatic life in San
Francisquito Creek to a less than significant level. The adopted
mitigation measures will prevent interference with steelhead
migration in San Francisquito Creek by preventing construction
activities during the migration period and requiring restoration of
the stream channel after completion of construction. The
mitigation measures will also prevent any loss of California
red-legged frogs and northwestern pond turtles, if any are found to
exist in the bridge-widening area, by ensuring their removal prior
to construction and requiring restoration of habitat values in the
streambed after construction. While the project may result in some
disturbance and possible loss of individuals of other non-sensitive
species, and permanent loss of a small amount of habitat area,
these impacts will be less than significant due to the limited area
affected by the project. The adopted mitigation measures will
prevent significant permanent loss of habitat by requiring
restoration of all areas temporarily disturbed by construction
activities.
33
9707021ac 0031S90
• •
Project Areas Outside the City
The Council recognizes that approval for the bridge widening
must also be obtained from the City of Menlo Park and that adoption
of the recommended mitigation measures for construction activities
within Menlo Park is within the responsibility and authority of
Menlo Park. The Council finds that in the event that Menlo Park
grants approval for the bridge widening, Menlo Park can and should
adopt the recommended mitigation measures.. However, because
compliance with the mitigation measures adopted by the City will be
required for construction of the bridge widening in any event, the
Council finds that the identified potential significant impacts of
the bridge widening will be reduced to a less than significant
level whether or not the recommended mitigation measures are also
adopted as conditions of project approval by Menlo Park.
4.7-8 Ongoing operation of the proposed projects could
adversely affect aquatic life, including sensitive animal species,
in San Francisquito Creek, by increasing runoff and non-point
source urban pollutant loads.
Mitigation measure 4.7-S(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a)-(c), which are discussed in greater
detail in connection with Impact 4.9-1. Generally/ these measures
require the applicant to prepare and comply with a SWPPP, which
includes appropriate specific measures to reduce or eliminate
potential erosion and sedimentation impacts discussed below.
Mitigation measure 4.7-S(b) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-4(a) and (b), which are discussed in
greater detail in connection with Impact 4.9-4.
The Council finds that adop·tion of these mitigation measures
will lessen the identified potential runoff and pollution impact on
aquatic life in San Francisquito Creek to a less than significant
level. The EIR concluded that the project, in conjunction with
other Sand Hill Road Corridor projects, could result in increased
runoff of sediments and contaminants into San Francisquito Creek
due to increased extent of paved surfaces, landscaping and ground
disturbances associated with the projects. The adopted mitigation
measures require preparation and implementation of construction
phase and post-construction storm water runoff management plans
which will incorporate recognized best management practices to
minimize siltation and runoff of contaminants from the project
areas. Residual silt and contaminant runoff reaching San
Francisquito Creek, if any, will not constitute a sufficient
addition to loads from existing development in the watershed to
result in any measurable further deterioration of water quality
conditions.
With respect to those portions of the project located outside
the City's boundaries, including changes to the Stanford golf
course, the Council finds that adoption of the recommended
mitigation measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility
of other public agencies, specifically the City of Menlo Park and
34
97070'2 lac 0031 ~90
• •
County of Santa Clara, and that these mitigation measures can and
should be adopted by these jurisdictions if they grant approvals
for those elements of the project located within its jurisdiction.
Because the recommended mitigation measures implement requirements
of state law, the Council also finds that there is no significant
potential that unavoided significant adverse runoff impacts will
result from approval of the project.
4.7·10 ~lementation of the proposed projects, in conjunction
with other proposed projects in the area would result in
LDcr..ental lees of trees and associated wildlife habitat.
Mitigation measure 4.7-lO(a} requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-l(a1 b, c, and e), discussed above, for all
Sand Hill Corridor projects.
Mitigation measure 4.7-lO(b) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-l(d, f, and g) t discussed above.
Mitigation measure 4.7-lO(c} recommends that all planning
jurisdictions in the project area, implement their respective tree
protection and preservation ordinances. For those jurisdicti~ns
without such an ordinance, measures similar to those presented in
mitigation measure 4.7-1 should be implemented on a
project-by-project basis.
The conditions of approval for the SHRE/RRI project
incorporate each of the project-specific mitigation measures
reconrnended in mitigation measures 4. 7-10 (a) and (b) . lrhe Council
r~s also adopted all of the applicable recommended project-specific
mitigation measures as conditions of approval for each of the Sand
Hill Corridor projects approved concurrently with tbe project. The
Council finds that ad~!Jtion of the recommended project-specific
measures will lessen the SHRE/RRI project's contribution to the
identified cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
Adoption and implementation of these measures in conjunction with
the Stanford West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing
projects will also reduce the combined cumulative impact of these
projects to a less than significant level. These measures
generally provide for full replacement of trees lost due. to
implementation of the project, thus eliminating any significant
cumulative impact. ·
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI project; however, the Council
finds that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction
with any future projects within the City or annexed to the City.
With respect to cumulative impacts· from future development
projects outside of the City, the Council finds that implementation
of the recommended measures is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies and that the agencies can
and should implement such measures to the extent feasible. Because
the nature and extent of potential cumulative loss of trees and
35
970702 lac 003U90
• •
related habitat from future projects is presently speculative and
unknown, and because the extent to which other agencies can and
will implement the recommended measures is presently unknown, the
Council cannot determine at this time the extent to which the
recommended measures will be implemented or the extent to which
these measures, if implemented, will lessen or avoid potential
cumulative visual impacts. The Council therefore finds that this
cumulative impact remains potentially si.gnificant despite the
adoption of available mitigation measures by the City ..
4 .. 7-11 Couatruetion of the proposed projects, in conjunction
~th other projects in the project area, would cumulatively result
in tree r..,..,ale that could directly destroy nests, eggs and
t.mature bird8. and would remove future nesting habitat for birds~
including sensitive species such as raptors and migrating
songbirds.
Mitigation measure 4.7-ll(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.7-2!a-c), discussed above, for the Stanford
West Apartments, S~anford West Senior Housing and SHRE/RRI
projects.
Mitiqation measur·e 4.7~1l(b} recorrmends that all planning
j urisdictlons in the project area implement measures similar to
those presented in rnicigation measure 4.7-2 on a project-by·-project
basis.
The conditions of approval for the SHRE/RRI project
incorporate the applicable project-specific mitigation measures
rec~~ended in mitigation measure 4.7-ll(a). The Council has also
adopted the recormnended project-specific mitigation measures as
cond~tions of approval for the Stanford West Apartments and
Stanford West Senior Housing projects approved concurrently with
the project. The Council finds that adoption of the recommended
project-specific measures will lessen the SHRE/RRI ~reject's
contribution to the identified cumulative impacts·· to a less than
significant level. Adoption of these mitigation measures in
conjunction with of the approved projects will also reduce the
combined cumulative impact of the projects to a less than
significant level. These measures generally provide for avoidance
of tree-cutting which may directly impact nesting activities and
provide for full replacement of trees lost due to implementation of
the project, thus eliminating any significant cumulative impact.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City is beyond the scope
of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI project; however, the Council
finds that such measures can and should be adopted in conjunction
with future projects approved by the City. With respect to
cumulative impacts from future development projects outside of the
City 1 the Council finds that implementation of the recommended
measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other
public agencies and that these agencies can and should implement
such measures to the extent feasible. Because the nature and
extent of the potential cumulative impact from future projects is
36
97070llac: 0031590
• •
presently speculative and unknown, and because the extent to which
other agencies can and will implement the recommended mitigation
measures is presently unknown, the Council cannot determine at this
time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen or avoid potential cumulative visual impacts. The
Council therefore finds that this cu:nulative impact remains
potentially significant despite the adoption of available
mitigation measures by the City.
4.7·12 The propoaed projects, in conjunction with other proposed
projecta in or adjacent to the San Pranc:isquito Creek ripari&D
corridor, would result in the loas of non-native grasslands which,
due to contiguousness with riparian habitat, provide increased
habitat diversity and foraging habitat for certain wildlife
species, including r&ptors.
Mi.tigation measure 4 .. 7-12 {b) recomr.~ends that further
development of open grassland areas adjacent to San Francisquito
Creek or its tributaries <primarily in the foothills southwest of
Junipero Serra Road) not be approved wi~hout provisions to
implement mitigation measures sir.dlar to those of mitigation
measures 4.7-3(a)-(h}, in consultation wi:h CDFG. ·
The Council recognizes that although the SHRE/RRI project will
not itself result in an environmentally significant loss of
grassland habitats, it will contribute t.o cumulative loss of
grassland habitat in the San Francisquito Creek drainage through
destruction of up to approximately 4.9 acres of existing
grasslands. The project-specific mitigation measures recommended
in mitigation measure 4.7-12(b} have been adopted by the Council as
cond.itions of approval for the Stanford West Apartments project.
Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures with respect to
future development projects considered by the City is beyond the
scope of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI project; however, the
Council finds that such measures can and should be considered in
conjunction with any future projects within the City or annexed to
the City. With respect to cumulative impacts from future
development projects outside of the City1 the Council finds that
implementation of the recommended measures is within .the
jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies and that
the agencies can and should implement such measures to the extent
feasible. Because the nature and extent of the potential
cumulative impact from future projects is presently speculative and
unknown, and because the extent to which other agencies can and
will implement the recommended mitigation measures is presently
unknown, the Council cannot determine at this time the extent LO
which the recommended measures will be imol~~ented or the extent to
which these measures, if implemented: will lessen or avoid
potential cumulative visual impacts. The Council therefore finds
that this cumulative impact remains potentially significant despite
the adoption of available mitigation measures by the City.
37
970702 Ju 0031590
• •
4.7 ... 15 ongoing operation of the proposed projeate, in
coajunctioa with similar projects within the same watershed, could
cause cumulative adverse affects on aquatic life, includ±Dg
senaitive an~l species, in San Prancisquito Creek, by increasing
runoff and non-point source urban pollutant loads.
Mitigation measure 4.7·15 requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-?(a}· (c) for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects. These measures incorporate mitigation measures
4.9·1{a)-(c) and 4.9-4((a) and (b), which are discussed in greater
detail in relation to Impact nos. 4.-1 and 4.9·4.
The conditions of approval for the SHRE/RRI project
incorporate each of the applicable project-specific mitigation
measures recommended in mitigation measures 4. 9-7 (a)-(c}. The
Council has also adopted the recommended project-specific
mitigation measures as conditions of approval for the other Sand
Hill Corridor projects approved concurrently with the project. The
Council finds that adoption of the recommended project -specific
measures will lessen the SHRE/RRI project's contribution to the
identified cumulative impacts t.o a less than significant level.
Adoption and implementation of these mitigation measures in
conjunction with the other Sand Hill Corridor projects will also
reduce the combined cumulative impact of these projects to a less
than significant level. The adopted project-specific measures
generally provide for preparation and compliance with detailed
SWPPP's, which will include specific measures to prevent excessive
sediment or pollution runoff which might result in significant
adverse effects on aquatic life or habitat values in Sa.n
Francisquito Creek. Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures
with respect to future development projects within the City is
beyond the scope of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI project;
however, the Council finds that such measures can and should be
adopted in conjunction with any future projects within the City or
annexed to the City.
Project Areas Outside the City
Adoption and implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures on portions of the project outside the City is within.the
jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies, primarily
the City of Menlo Park and County of Santa Clara. The Council
finds that the recommended mitigation measures can and should be
adopted in the event that approvals are granted by these agencies.
The Council also recognizes, howeve ... ~ that in the ev~ut that these
agencies approve elements of the project but do not implement the
recommended mitigation measures, significant adverse impacts could
result.
With respect to cumulative impacts from future development
projects outside of the City, the Council finds that implementation
of the recommended measures is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies and that the agencies can
and should implement such measures to the extent feasible. Because
the nature and extent of the potential cumulative impact from
38
970702 lac 003 J S90
• •
future projects is presently speculative and unknown, and because
the extent to which other agencies can and will implement the
recommended mitigation measures is presently unknown, the Council
cannot determine at this time the extent to which the recommended
measures will be implemented or the extent to which these measures,
if implemented, will lessen or avoid potential cumulative impact
resulting from increased runoff of sediment and pollutants into San
Francisquito Creek. The Council therefore finds that this
cumulative impact remains potentially significP,nt despite the
adoption of available mitigation measures by the City. However,
because the recommended mitigation measures generally implement
requirements of state law, the Council finds that the potential for
such significant cumulative impacts is low.
4.8 GEQLQGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
4.8-l. Expansive or weak soils could damage foundations by
providing i.nadequa te support.
Mitigation measure 4.8~1{a) requires site specific soil
suitability analysis be conducted and soil stabilization procedures
and foundation design criteria be adopted in accordance wi.th
engineering criteria where the existence of expansive and
compressible soil conditions is kno~~ or suspected.
Mitigation measure 4. 8-1 {b) requires participation by the
project's registered soil engineer as deemed necessary to oversee,
verify, and report on soil engineering procedures and results.
The EIR concludes that soil conditions encountered during
construction could/ but will not necessarily create a risk of
inadequate support for roadways and bridge foundations associated
with the project. The Council finds that adoption of these
mitigation measures will lessen impacts related to potentially
expansive or weak soils to a less than significant level·. These
measures implement standard engineering procedures.· and safeguards
for ensuring safe construction of all roadways and related
improvements~
Project Areas Outside the City
Adoption and implementation of these measures on portions of
the project outside the City is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies, primarily the City of
Menlo Park~ The Council finds that the recommended mitigation
measures can and should be adopted in the event that approvals are
granted by Menlo Park. The Council also recognizes, however, that
in the event that Menlo Park approves the project but do not
implement the recommended mitigation measures, significant adverse
impa.cts could result.
39
97070llac 0031590
• •
t.8·2 The Staoford Sand Bill Road Corridor Project• ~rea ie
•ubject to very· atrong aei.amically induced groundahaking which
could threaten life and damage property.
Mitigation measure 4. 8-2 (a) requires that documented
site-specific seismic-restraint criteria be incorporated in the
design of foundations and structures of the project which meet the
mdn~ seismic-resistant design standards of CUBC Seismic zone 4.
Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design
criteria will be incorporated in the project where recommended by
qualified experts. Roads, foundations and underground utilities in
fill or alluvium shall be designed to accommodate settlement or
compaction produced by seismic forces~
Mitigation measure 4.8-2(b} requires on-site participation by
the project's registered geological or geotechnical engineering
consultant~ as deemed appropriate~ to oversee, verify, and report
on seismic-restraint procedures and results.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 8·2 (c) requires that an engineering
geologist be contracted for third party review of all geologic,
soils and engineerin-g reports prepared for the proposed projects ..
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
impacts of exposure to seismic events to a less than significant
level. These measures implement standard engineering procedures
for ensuring adequate resistance of project elements to expected
seismic events.
Project Areas Outside the City
Adoption and i~~lementation of these measures on portions of
the project outside the City is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of other public agencies, primarily the City of
Menlo Park. The Council finds that the recommended mitigation
measures can and should be adopted in the event that··· approvals are
granted by these agencies. The Council also recognizes, however,
that in the event that these agencies approve the project but do
not implement the reconunended mitigation measures, significant
adverse ~cts could result.
4.8-3 Excavation and construction activities to widen Sand Hill
Road Bridge could increase erosion of soil, increase deposition of
sed~t, and decrease bank stability in San Francisquito Creek.
Mitigation measure 4.8-3 requires implementation of mitigation
measures 4.7-7(b)-(e), which provide for full mitigation of
potential impacts on the San Francisquito Creek habitat.
The Council finds t~at adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential erosion impacts on San Francisquito Creek
to a less than significant level. The adopted measures preclude
construction activity during times of active stream flow and
require restoration of the stream channel to natural conditions
following completion of bridge construction, thus avoiding any
40
970102 lK 0031 ,90
• •
projects within the City is beyond the scope of approvals granted
for the SHRE/RRI project; however, the Council finds that such
measures can and should be adopted in conjunction with any future
projects approved by the City.
Project Areas Outside the City
This impact is not cumulatively significant for project
improvements outside the City, s1nce these improvements are
improvements of existing roadways and intersections. With respect
to cumulative impacts from future development outside of the City,
the Council finds that implementation of the recommended measures
is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public
agencies and that these agencies can and should implement such
measures. Because the recommended mitigation measures rely in part
upon compliance with existing seismic safety practices and
standards, it is expected that other jurisdictions will implement
the measures to a large extent. However, because the extent of the
potential cumulative impact from future projects is presently
unJr..nown, and because the extent to which other agencies can and
will implement the recommended mitigation measures beyond current
minimum standards is uncertain, the Council cannot fully determine
at this time the extent to which the recommended measures will be
implemented or the extent to which these measures, if implemented,
will lessen the potential cumulative impact associated with
increased development in the seismically sensitive region around
the projects. The Council therefore finds that this cumulative
impact remains potentially significant despite the adoption of
available mitigation measures by the City.
4 • 9 HYDROLOGY AND WA'l'ER OtTALITY
4.9-1 Grading. excavation and construction activities could
result in increased deposition of sediment and/or discharge of
pollutants in the storm drainage system and San Prancisquito Creek
and adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-1(a) requires the applicant to prepare,
retain and implement a SWPPP which describes the site, erosion and
sediment controls, means of rr~terial storage and waste disposal,
implementation of approved local plans, post-construction control
measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water
management controls. The plan shall implement appropriate Best
Management Practices (•BMPs") identified in the EIR.
Mitigation measure 4.9-l(b) requires that the SWPPP shall be
prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City's
Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit.
The SWPPP shall be implemented and inspected as part of the
approval process for the grading plans for each project.
Mitigation measure 4.9-1{c} requires that all construction
contracts include the City's construction contract Pollution
Prevention Language as part of the project specifications.
42
970702 lac 0031 590
• •
Mitigation measure 4.9-l{d) requires the applicant to
implement mitigation measures 4.7·7{b) .. (d).
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential sedimentation and contaminant impacts on
San Francisquito Creek to a less than significant level.. The
adopted mitigation measures implement regulatory requirements and
practices demonstrated to prevent excessive or damaging runoff of
sediments and pollutants from development sites. Residual runoff
of sediments and contaminants from construction areas~ if any, will
not occur in sufficient quantities to significantly degrade
existing water quality.
Project Areas OUtside the City
Adoption and implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures on portions of the project outside tiie City is within the
jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies; prirr~rily
the City of Menlo Park and County of Santa Clara. The Council
finds that the recommended mitigation measures can and should be
adopted in the event that approvals are granted by these agencies.
The Council also recognizes, however, that ir. the event. that: these
agencies approve elements of the project but do not implement the
recommended mitigation measures, significant adverse impacts could
result.
4.9-3 Widening Sand Bill Road Bridge would alter the shape of
the San Prancisquito Creek channel, potentially causing future
hydraulic changes that could erode and/or destabilize downstream
Creek banks.
Mitigation measure 4.9-3(a} requires that the applicant fund
preparation of a hydraulic analysis of the proposed bridge
extension, abutments, w~ng walls, and adjacent channel
configuration to demonstrate that there will be no increased flow
rates which could increase downstream erosion. The· results of the
analysis shall be reviewed and approved by appropriate specialists
·under contract to the City and by the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (wSCVWD") .
Mitigation measure 4. 9-3 (b) requires that .; f substantial
erosive flow rates are identified, the applicant will be required
to incorporate sufficient flow-rate reduction features. These
measures may include planting willows, roughening the bridge
abutment, placing large boulders in the low flow level of the
channel~ or a combination of such measures to offset the increased
erosive force.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation measures
will lessen the project's potential significant impact on hydrology
of San Francisquito Creek to a less than significant level. The
adopted measures provide for full hydraulic analysis of the
potential effects of bridge reconstruction and incorporation of
design features or other flow-rate reduction features which will
43
970702 lac 0031590
• •
avoid any overall increase in stream flows and resulting downstream
erosive effects from the bridge widening.
Project Areas Outside the City
Authority and responsibility for approval and implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures is shared with the City of
Menlo Park. However, since the bridge widening cannot, as a
practical matter, proceed without City approvals and compliance
with conditions imposed by the City, there is no potential that the
project will proceed w.ithout implementation of the City's adopted
mitigation measures.
4.9-4 Increased impervious surface and landscaping associated
with development of the Proposed Projeets could increase urban
contaminants in surface runoff potentially reducing water quality
in San Prancisquito Creek.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 9-4(a) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a) through (c) for all approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects.
Mitigation measure 4 .. 9-4{b) requires that the SWPPP shall
include in the final project design appropriate BMPs selected by
the City, consisting either of detailed measures identified in the
EIR or equivalent measures.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will lessen
the project's potential operational contaminant impacts on San
Francisquito Creek to a less than significant level. ~~ese adopted
mitigation measures require incorporation of design features which
will trap or othe~1ise minimize runoff of contaminants from paved
surfaces constructed as part of the project. Residual contaminant
runoff reaching San Francisquito Creek is not expected to
constitute a sufficient addition to loads from existing development
in the watershed to result in any measurable furthe·r deterioration
of water quality.
Project Areas Outside the City
Adoption and implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures on portions of the project outside the City is within the
jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies, primarily
the City of Menlo Park and County of Santa Clara. The Council
finds that the recommended mitigation measures can and should be
adopted in the event that approvals are granted by these agencies.
Since these measures reflect in part requirements of state law, the
Council finds that there is no significant potential that the
identified potential impacts will result from approval of portions
of the project outside the City.
44
970702 lac 0031$90
• •
4.9-5 Project con8truction activities in combination with other
cODatruction project• in the Watershed could cumulatively increase
aediment and other construction-related pollutants in San
Pranciaquito Creek and adversely affect water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(a) recommends that all area
jurisdictionf.3 ensure that project applicants include BMPs in
construction contracts implementing the requirements of NPDES
Municipal Storm Water Permit #CAS029718.
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(b) recommends that applicants for all
area projects of five acres or more, be required to prepare a
detailed SWPPP under the State General Construction Activity Storm
Water Per.nit ..
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(c) requires implementation of
mitigation measures 4.9-l(a) through {c) for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects.
The recommended mitigation measures or equivalent measures
have been incorporated in the conditions of approval for the
project and for the other Sand Hill Corridor projects approved
concurrently with the project. The Council finds that adoption of
these project-specific measures will lessen the project's
contribution to potential cumulative sedimentation and contaminant
impacts associated with construction to a less than significant
level and will also lessen the combined cumulative impact of the
approved Sand Hill Corridor projects to a less than significant
level. The adopted measures require implementation of control
measures which will preclude significant sedimentation or
contaminant impacts from the projects.
Project Areas Outside the City
'. Adoption and implementation of the recommended
project-specific mitigation measures for portions'~of the project
outside the City is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of
other public agencies, primarily the City of Menlo Park and County
of Santa Clara. The Council finds that the recommended mitigation
measures can and should be adopted in the event that approvals'are
granted by these agencies. Since the recommended measures
implement requirements of state law, it is unlikely that a
significant impact will result from approval of portions of the
project located outside the City.
Adoption of the reco~mended mitigation measures with respect
to future development projects within the City's jurisdiction is
beyond the scope of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI project;
however, the Council finds that the City can and should adopt and
implement such recommended measures for any future projects
approved by the City which have a potential to adversely affect San
Francisquito Creek. With respect to implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures by jurisdictions other than the
City, the Council finds that implementation of such measures is
within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies
45
9707021ac 0031590
• •
and that the recommended measures can and should be implemented by
these agencies~ These measures are generally consistent with
requirements imposed by state law. However, because the nature and
extent of potential area-wide cumulative impacts from future
development are presently speculative and unknown, and because the
extent to which other agencies can and will implement the
recarmended measures beyond minimum standards is presently unknown,
the Council cannot determine at this time the extent to which the
recommended measures will be implemented or the extent to which
these measures, if implemented, will avoid potential cumulative
~cts. The Council therefore finds that this cumulative impact
remains potentially significant despite the adoption of available
mdtigation measures by the Council.
4.9-6 Increased ~ious surfaces associated with development
of the Stanford Sand Bill Road Corridor Projects and areas in the
San Francisquito Creek Watershed could cumulatively increase
surface runoff, potentially increasing ~he frequency and sev,~rity
of existing downstream flooding ..
Mitigation measure 4.9-6 recommends that all jurisdictions
regulating development in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed
require t.hat adequate drainage and flood control facilities be
provided for existing and planned development, in compliance with
applicable General Plan goals and policies and ordinances and in
coordination with SCVWD requirements.
Due to the limited increase in existing paved areas effected
by the project, the SHRE/RRI will not significantly contribute to
any potential c~Yirulative flooding impacts. Measures have been
included in the design and conditions of approval of the Stanford
West Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects which
will lessen the collective contribution of the Sand Hill Corridor
projects t.o potential flood impacts to a less than significant
level. Adoption and implementation of the recommended mitigation
measure ~~ith respect to future development with:Ln the City is
beyond the scope of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI project;
however, the Council finds that appropriate measures can and should
be adopted in conjunction with future development to the full
extent required by City general plan policies and regulations.'
Project Areas Outside the City
The cumulative impact from portions of the project located
outside the City are not considered potentially significant due to
the small area of additional paved surfaces which will result from
the projects~ With respect to future development located outside
of the City, the Council finds that implementation of the
recommended measures is within the jurisdiction and responsibility
of other public agencies and that these agencies can and should
implement the recommended mitigation. Because the extent of
potential cumulative impacts from future development are presently
speculative and unknown, and because the extent to which other
agencies can and will implement appropriate mitigation measures or
programs and the degree to which implementation will result in
46
!n0702 lac 0031S90
• •
effective mitigation are not presently known, the Council cannot
determine at this time the extent to which the recamnended measures
will be implemented or the extent to which implementation will
lessen potential cumulative effects. The Council therefore finds
that this cumulative impact remains potentially significant.
4.9-7 IDcreaaed ~1~ aurface &8aociated with development
of the Stanford 8aD4 Bill Road Corridor Project• and areas in the
San Pranciaquito Creek waterahed could cu.ulatively iDcreaae urban
conta.inant• in .urface runoff poteatially reducing water quality.
Mitigation measure 4.9-7(a) recommends that all local
jurisdictions ensure that future project applicants include BMPs as
part of project design in accordance with SFBRWQCB requirements.
Mitigation measure 4. 9-7 (b) notes that it is within the
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (SFBRWQCB) to re~~ire that comprehensive SWPPPs and
monitoring programs be implemented by all storm water dischargers
associated with specified industrial activities, in compliance with
the State's Gene~al Per.mits, and to require that such plans shall
include BMPs or equally effective measures"
Mitigation measure 4.9~7(c) requires irnplern~~ntation of
mitigation measures 4. 9-4 (a} and (b) by all approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects.
The conditions of approval for the SHRE/RRI project
incorporate each of the recommended project-specific mitigation
measures or equivalent measures to mitigate the identified
potential cumulative cont~"Tlina..."lt impact to San Francisquito Creek.
The Council finds that adoption of these recommended measures will
lessen the project's contribution to the identified potential
cumulative impact to a less than significant level. The
recommended measures have also been adopted in connection with
approval of the other approved Sand Hill Road Corridor projects,
and will lessen the combined cumulative impact of the projects to
a less than significant level. Adoption of the recommended
mitigation measures for future development within the City is
beyond the scope of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI project.
However, the Council finds that the City can and should adopt
equivalent measures for all projects approved within its
jurisdiction.
Project Areas Outside the City
The cumulative impact from portions of the project located
outside the City are not considered potentially significant due to
the small area of additional paved surfaces which will result from
the projects. With respect to impacts resulting from future
development outside the City, jurisdiction and responsibility for
implementation of recommended mitigation measures or equivalent
measures is vested in other public agencies. The Council finds
that these jurisdictions can and should implement such measures.
However, because the nature and extent of potential cumulative
47
970702 lac 0031 '90
------------------------------------------.a·• • •
impacts from future development are presently speculative and
unknown, and the degree to which other jurisdictions vill implement
recommended mitigation measures is uncertain, the Council cannot
deter.mine at this time the extent to which the recommended measures
will be implemented outside the City's boundaries and also cannot
deter.mine the extent to which these measurest if implemented, will
lessen or avoid the identified potential cumulative impact. This
cumulative impact therefore remains potentially significant.
4.11
4.11-3 The proposed projects could uae water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4.11-3 requires that in order to reduce
water consumption, the project design shall incorporate measures to
maximize the efficient use of water and minimize t.otal water
consumption. Specific measures to be included are the following:
All landscape designs shall incorporate and address the
City Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. The project
sites would be subject to an annual rr.aximurn water
allowance for landscaping.
The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of
Palo Alto Utilities Department, Resource Management
Division to determine other conservation related
improvements tha.t would apply to the projects.
The EIR concluded that because final plans have not been
completed and evaluated, there existed a potential that water used
for irrigating median strips and landscaping could be used
inefficiently. The Council finds that the adopted mitigation
measure will lessen this potentially significant impact to
insignificance by ensuring that final landscaping and construction
plans meet current City Water Efficiency Standards ~nd incorporate
additional conservation measures if recommended by-City staff.
4.11-4 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing water services.
~tigation measure 4.11·4 provides that prior to the start of
construction of infrastructure, the project applicant shall provide
a plan for review and approval to the City of Palo Alto Director of
Utilities outlining the approach to be taken to minimize the impact
to existing utilities and customers.
The BIR determined that connection of infrastructure
associated with the Sand Hill Corridor projects to existing service
lines and facilities could result in potentially significant
interruptions of utility services for existing users, specifically
interruptions of water service (Impact 4-11-4), wastewater service
(Impact 4-11-11), ·electrical service (Impact 4-11-17) and gas
service (Impact 4wll·24.) Construction activities associated with
the SHRE/RRI project could potentially further delay timely
connections in the absence of adequate planning and coordination.
48
970702 lac 0031590
• •
The Council finds that the adopted mitigation measures will lessen
each of these potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level by requiring the applicant to submit and obtain
approval of plans which will provide for.completion of all utility
connections for the project with the minimum necessary interruption
of existing services.
4.11-7 CUmulative development could use water wastefully.
Mitigation measure 4.11-7 provides that the City shall ensure
that each new project approved within the City requiring ARB
approval is required to be consistent with and implement the City
policies and programs related to "'ater conservation.
The EIR concluded that existing City policies and programs are
adequate to avoid cumulative wasteful use of water~ and that a
significant adverse impact had the potential to occur on~,y if the
City failed to continue to implement these policies and programs.
The recommended mitigation measure provides that the City will
continue to implement existing water conservation policies by
making compliance a condition of ARB approval for all new projects.
While implementa.tion of this mitigation measure is beyond the scqpe
of approvals granted for the Stanford v1est Senior Housing project,
the Council finds that this mitigation measure can and should be
implemented with respect to future projects and will lessen the
identified potentially significant cumulative impact to
insignificance.
4~11-9 The proposed projects would require improvement of the
existing 21-inch wastewater line.
Mitigation measure 4.11-9 requires that in the event that
open-trench technology is used, the project applicant shall ensure
that the new 24-inch wastewater line is constructed coincident
with, and placed in the right-of-way of, Palo Road, during Phase I
of project construction, thereby avoiding potential biological
impacts and conflicts with future uses associated with the
alternative location of the line.
The SHRE/RRI itself will not contribute to the need . for
expanded wastewater lines, but will facilitate development of the
Sand Hill Corridor development projects which contribute to this
impact. The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the potential significant adverse impacts associated
with construction of a new 21" wastewater line to a less than
significant level. This mitigation measure requires the applicant
to either use technology which avoids trenching and resulting tree
removal in the Stanford arboretum, or to relocate the route of the
replacement pipeline along existing right-of-way containing no
significant environmental resources in order to avoid impacts to
the arboretum.
49
970702 lac 0031 S90
• •
4.11-11 Con•truction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
exiBting wastewater services.
Mitigation measure 4.11-11 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4, discussed above.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4.11-13 Cullulati,re development could require major infrastructure
~rovementa to the existing wastewater system.
Mitigation measure 4.1l·l3(a) recommends that the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Department ensure that developers responsible for
construction of new wastewater lines coordinate with all other
parties intending to utilize the line.
Mitigation measure 4 .ll-13 (b) recommends that sewer line
capacity studies satisfactory to the City#s Director of Utilities
be conducted prior to initiating future cumulative development.
Mitigation measure 4.11~13(c) recommends that all final
designs for the sizing of new sewer mains shall be based .on
infiltration from a 20-year storm and peak base wastewater flow.
The EIR concluded that lack of coordinated planning for future
development could result in failure to adequately size area
wastewater lines~ resulting in future need to again upgrade these
lines to provide needed capacity. The SHRE/RRI project will not
directly contribute to the need for future expanded wastewater
lines and facilities, but will facilitate development of the Sand
Hill Corridor development projects which will contribute to this
need. The recommended mitigation measures provide for full
evaluation and correct sizing of mains prior to cumulative
development. The Council finds that adoption of these measures
will lessen the project!s contribution to this potential cumulative
impact to a less-than significant level. These mit±9ation measures
will also lessen the overall potential cumulative impact to a less
than significant level since implementation of these measures will
result in provision of adequate long-term capacity for all
reasonably foreseeable development.
4~11-17 Construction of the proposed improvements could disrupt
existing electrical services.
Mitigation measure 4.11-17 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4 for all Sand Hill Corridor projects.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
50
970702 lac 003 1 590
• •
•.11·24 Coo.tructicn of the propoaed tmprov..enta could di•rupt
oxiatiDg gaa •ervic••·
Mitigation measure 4.11-24 requires implementation of
mitigation measure 4.11-4 for all Sand Hill Corridor projects.
See findings re mitigation measure 4.11-4.
4 r 12 PUBLIC SD.YICU NlP SCHOOLS
4.12·3 Lacreaaed traffic due to the construction of the pr~osed
project• could reduce PAFD response times, especially during
special eveota on the Stanford Campus, peak comm.ute hours, and
aeaaonal holidays~ when traffic flow is known to increase
significantly.
Mitigation measure 4~12-3(a) requires that as a condition of
project approval, the project applicant shall prepare a
construction vehicle rr~nagement plan that:
Uses established truck routes for large construction
vehicles.
Includes an approved construction plan, including
scheduling, routes and methods, to minimize construction
impacts during peak annual traffic periods (e.g., special
events at Stanford University, holiday seasons, etc.).
Ensures that Sand Hill Road will remain open at all times
in each direction to allow direct access to the Stanford
University Medical Center from both directions.
~tigation measure 4.12-J(b) requires the applicant to prepare
and comply with an emergency response plan that specifies alternate
emergency response routes to the project sites and vicinity which
meet the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) and Palo Alto Police
Department (PAPD} response time goals. The Plan shall keep one
lane in each direction of Sand Hill Road open at all times.
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project's construction-phase impact on emergency
response times. The measure provides for detailed planning which
will ensure that adequate alternate response routes and a minimum
of one open lane on Sand Hill Road are maintained at all times
during to construction for emergency traffic.
4.12-4 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of fire suppression service calls to the PAFD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-4 provides that in order to offset
cumulative increased demand on Palo Alto Fire Department resources,
one of the following measures shall be implemented:
51
97070llac 0031 S90
• •
The project applicant shall provide funding to support
the acquisition of additional PAFD personnel for their
fair share of cumulative impacts;
The City should require fair-share contributions from all
future projects placing increased demand on the PAFD; or
From the increased tax revenues generated by the projects
and other future cu..111ulative projects, the City could
provide additional resources to the PAFD from the City's
General Fund ..
Increased traffic on Sand Hill Road and related roadway
improvements may result in some incremental increase in fire
suppression service calls, but this Clli~lative impact is
anticipated primarily due to increased development and population
associated with the Sand Hill Corridor development projects and
other future development. The Council has adopted the third of
these mitigation alte~natives for the project through the
conditions of approvalo The Council finds that this mitigation
measure will lessen the identified cumulative impact on fire
suppression ser\.rices to a less than significant level for each .of
the Sand Hill Corridor projects and future development. Cost and
revenue projections for the approved projects indicate that
increased tax revenues from the projects and other potential future
development will be more than adequate to fund additional resources
for the PAFD necessary t.o rnain~.:ain currer..t levels of senrice
throughout the City. The Council also finds that the alternative
means of funding increased PAFD resources identified in EIR
mitigation measure 4.12-4. specifically (1) fair share applicant
funding of new PAFD personnel, and (2) fair-share contributions
from future projects, are not necessary based on current
information to maintain adequate fire protection within the City
and would result in imposing unnecessary special additional costs
on new development. ·
4.12-5 Cumulative development would increase the annual number
of medical emergency service calls to the PAPD.
Mitigation measure 4.12-5 provides that future cumulative
projects could pay fair share toward a medi-van unit; or,
alternately, the City could provide additional medi-van resources
to the PAFD with general fund increases from tax revenues generated
by the projects and other future cumulative projects.
While increased traffic on Sand Hill Road and related improved
roadways included in the project could result in some incremental
increase in emergency medical responses, the EIR concluded that
this potential cumulative impact would result primarily from
increased population and development associated with the Sand Hill
Corridor development projects and future development. The Council
has adopted the second of these mitigation alternatives for the
Sand Hill Corridor projects. The Council finds that this
mitigation measure will lessen the identified potential cumulative
impact on emergency medical services to a less than significant
52
970702 lac 0031 S90
• •
level. Cost and revenue projections indicate that increased tax
revenues from the Sand Hill Corridor projects and other potential
future development will be adequate to fund additional emergency
medical resources as needed to maintain current levels of service
throughout the City. The Council also finds that the alternative
means of funding increased emergency medical services identified in
EIR mitigation measure 4.12-5, specifically that future development
projects directly pay a fair share toward a medi"van unit or, is
not necessary to maintain adequate level of emergency medical
services based on current information~
4.12-6 Increased. construction tx·affie
development could reduce PAPD response ttmeaft
from cumulative
Mitigation measure 4.12-6 provides that as part of the project
approval process, the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and
Community Environment shall ensure the following:
All projects coordinate with the PAFD and PAPD to prepare
an emergency response plan for the construction period
that specifies alternate emergency response routes to the
project site and vicinity which meet the Departments'
response time goals; and
The Emergency Response Plan for all Sand Hill Corridor
projects will specify procedures to allow simultaneous
construction without increasing emergency response times
to an unacceptable level.
The Council finds that adoption of this rrdtigation measure
will lessen the project's potential impact on PAFD emergency
response times to insignificance. This measure ensures that
detailed plans will be developed and implemented to ensure that
existing or adequate alternative response routes will be kept open
at all times to permit PAFD responses to all service areas within
PAFD response time standards.
4.12-9 Increased traffic due to the construction of the proposed
projects could increase police response times, especially during
special events on the Stanford Campus, peak eomaute hours, ·and
seasonal holidays, when traffic flow is known to increase
significantly.
Mitigation measure 4.12-9
mitigation measure 4.12-3(b).
requires implementation of
The Council finds that adoption of this mitigation measure
will lessen the project's construction-phase impact on emergency
response times. Mitigation measure 4.12-3(b) provides for detailed
planning which will ensure that adequate alternate response routes
and a minimum of one open lane on Sand Hill Road are maintained at
all times during to construction for emergency traffic.
53
970702 lac 0031 S90
I • •
4.12·10 CUmulative development would increase the annual number
of police service calla to the PAPD.
Mitigation measure 4.12·10 identifies three alternate means of
funding additional police services to offset increased demand on
Palo Alto Police Department resources. Condition 2 .. c of the
project conditions of approval provides that the City shall adopt
the second of these alternatives, specifically, the City shall fund
additional PAPD resources from increased tax revenues generated by
the projects and other future cumulative projectst
This cumulative impact will result primarily from increased
population and development with the Sand Hill Corridor development
projects and other future development; however, increased traffic
on Sand Hill Road and related roadways could result in some
incremental increase in PAPD responses to the Sand Hill Corridor
area. The Council finds that the adopted mitigation will lessen
the potential cumulative impact of the project and of new
de·velopment generally on police services to a less than significant
level. Cost and revenue projections indicate that increased tax
revenues from the Sand Hill Corridor projects and other potential
future development will be adequate to fund additional poli.ce
services as needed to maintain current levels of senrice throughout
the City. The Council also finds that the alternative means of
funding increased police services identified in the EIR is not
necessary to maintain adequate level of police services based on
current inforrration.
4.12-11 Designs of cumulative development projects could present
security risks to occupants and police patrol personnel.
l'-1itigation measure 4.12-11 recommends that the City Department
of Planning and Community Environment ensure that future project
lighting and landscaping are reviewed with the PAPD to lessen
safety risks. The ARB shall provide final review and app·roval.
The EIR did not find that the SHRE/RRI project would have any
significant direct or cumulative impact on public security.
Project specific mitigation measures have been adopted in
conjunction with other Sand Hill Corridor projects "hich will
mitigate any potential cumulative impact from the Sand Hill
Corridor projects. Adoption of this mitigation measure as a policy
governing review and approval of all future development within the
City is beyond the scope of the decision and approvals granted for
the Stanford West Senior Housing project~ However, the Council
finds that the recommended mitigation measure can and should be
implemented in relation to future development projects within the
City.
4.12-12 Increased construction traffic from
development could increase PAPD response times.
cumulative
Mitigation measure 4 .12 -12 requires impl emen tat ion of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 by all approved Sand Hill Road Corridor
Projects.
54
970702 lac 0031.590
• •
This mitigation measure has been implemented by adoption ot
mitigation measure 4.12-6 for the each of the approved Sand Hill
Corridor projects. The Council finds that implementation of
mitigation measure 4.12-6 will lessen the cumulative impact of
construction of the projects on PAPD response times to a less than
significant level.
4.12·14 Cumulative development, including the proposed Stanford
West Apartaanta Project, would cause K-12th grade enrollments to
exceed PAUSD achool capacity of 916 students or 12 percent ia.
year 2004-2005.
The BIR proposed the adoption of mitigation measure 4.12·14 to
mitigate this identified cumulative impact. Mitigation measure
4.12-14 recommends that the City adopt a policy that encourages all
future developers to contribute their fair share over and above
payment of the development fee to mitigate school impacts.
The SHREiRRI project will not result in addition of any
children to area schools, and thus will not cause or contribute to
any cumulative impact on public schools regardless of the adoption
of this suggested mitigation measure. However~ the Council
recognizes that cumulative impacts on public schools from future
development are potentially significant, and further finds that
these impacts would remain potentially significant whether or not
the suggested mitigation measure is adopted as a policy of the City
since contributions by developers would remain voluntary regardless
of City encouragement.
Adoption of a City policy of encouraging future developers to
contribute school mitigation funds in excess of mandatory
development fees is beyond the sr.ope of approvals for the SHRE/RRI
project. However, the Council has taken substantial steps to
encourage the project applicant to discuss and fund. mutually
acceptable mitigation measures with the school district in
conjunction with the Stanford West 1tpartments project approved
concurrently with this project, and can and will continue to take
similar steps to encourage voluntary additional contributions by
developers of future projects with the goal of fully offsetting any
impacts which cannot be mitigated through mandatory development
fees and tax revenue increases associated with new development.
4~12-18 The proposed projects would increase solid waste
geaeration in the City of Palo Alto during construction requiring
increased diversion to meet the goals of AB 939.
Mitigation measure 4.12-18 requires the applicant to prepare
and implement a construction recycling plan approved by the City
Public Works Department. The plan shall include specific steps to
achieve the City's short-term Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRRE) diversion goal of 30-40 percent through various
specified measures.
The Council finds that adoption of this measure will lessen
the identified potential solid waste impact to a less than
55
970702 ~~ 0031 ,90
• •
significant level. The approved recycling plan will ensure that
provision is made for recovering all recyclable wastes generated
during construction, thus avoiding unnecessary placement of
recyclable materials in landfills.
4.12-19 CU.Ulative development anticipated by the City through
Year 2010, including the proposed projects, would increase solid
waate generation by 5.5 percent over 1995 levels to 155,650 tons
per year based on the projected growth of population and employees.
Mitigation measure 4.12-19(a) recommends that the City require
significant new development projects to prepare construction
recycling plans as part of the project approval process. The
construction plan shall include specific steps to achieve the AB939
diversion goal of SO percent by 2000 through various specified
measures.
Mitiaation measure 4.l2ol9(b) recomn1ends that the City require
new development projects to prepare long~term operational recycling
pro3rarrs as part of project approval process. The programs should
meet the AB9J9 diversion goal of 50 percent by 2000, and include
various additional specified elements
~fuiJ.e construction of the project will result in generation of
solid -..rastes, future operations of the project will not produce any
significant quantities of solid waste. The recommended mitigation
measures have been effectively applied to the SHRE/RRI project
through the adoption of mitigation measure 4.12-18. The Council
finds that adoption of this measure will reducf.? the project's
contribution to potential cumulative solid waste impacts to a less
than signific~~t level. Adoption of mitigation measures 4.12-19(a)
and 4.12-19{b) as policies governing review and approval of all
future development. within the City is beyond the scope of the
decision ~~d approvals granted for the Stanford West Senior Housing
project. However, the Council finds that adoption ·af these
proposed mitigation measures or equivalent measures·· can and should
be considered in relation to future development projects within the
City.
5. 2 GR.QWTR XNDUCING iMPACTS
The EIR concluded that the SHRE/RRI project would have a
significant growth inducing impact in that it would facilitate
expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center beyond the approximately
additional 49,000 square feet allowed under City zoning
restrictions. No mitigation measures are identified in the EIR for
this significant impact and the impact is significant. In
addition, changes were made in the proposed Stanford Shopping
Center Expansion project to limit actual expansion to 80,000 square
feet of new commercial space, substantially below the 160,000
square feet initially proposed by the applicant. While these
actions will not permaner~tly preclude possible further shopping
center expansion~ these actions will substantially lessen the short
and intermediate term growth inducing impact of the project on the
Stanford Shopping Center.
56
970701 W: 0031 S90
• •
The EIR also concluded that relocation of Pasteur Drive as
part of the SHRE/RRI project and resulting creation of a new 2.5
acre parcel will have 4 potentially significant growth inducing
~ct on the parcel. No mitigation measures are identified in the
EIR for this impact and the impact therefore remains potentially
significant. Chapter 5.1 of the SIR evaluates the potential
environmental impacts which may result from development of this
Parcel. The Council ha• fully considered these potential impacts
and found them acceptable in granting approval for the Pasteur
Drive Parcel Annexation and for the SHRE/RRI project.
The EIR also concluded that the improvement and extension of
Palo Drive as part of the SHRE/RRI project would substantially
improve access to the Hoover Pavilion area of the Stanford
University property, thereby reducing a potential obstacle to
development of existing vacant land in this area and resulting in
a potentially significant growth·inducing impact. No mitigation
measures a.re identified in the EIR for this impact. The potential
impacts of residential development in portions of the affected area
were considered in the EIR as part of its evaluation of potential
alternative sites for the Stanford West Apartments and Stanford
West Senior Housing projects, The Council has reviewed this
information and concluded that large-scale housing development in
this area is not feasible at the present time due to extensive
conflicts with adopted land use plans and policies of the City,
County of Santa Clara and Stanford University. However, existing
land use designations in this area do allow some development and
changes could be made to the exist:i.ng land use policies which
restrict development in the area in the long tenn. The Council
therefore also concurs that this growth inducing impact is
potentially •igni!ieant*
The EIR concluded that extension of Stock Farm Road as part of
the project would substantially improve access to the area
currently designated as Special Condition Area wa~ in Stanford's
General Use Permit, thereby eliminating an obstacle' to development
and resulting in a potentially significant growth-inducing impact
for this area. However, the Council finds that because the
extension of Stock Far.m Road will result in permanent improvements
which could facilitate future development, this impact remains
potentially aignificant in the long terrn.
The EIR concluded that the overall set of roadway improvements
may serve to remove an obstacle to development of the contemplated
400,000 square foot expansion of the Stanford Medical Center. The
traffic impacts of such development of the Medical Center as well
as the impacts of cumulative development along the Sand Hill
corridor were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis
contained in the EIR. The EIR finds the impacts of such cumulative
development within the Sand Hill Corridor significant, as discussed
elsewhere in these findings.
57
970702 lac 0031 ,90
• •
PART II
AlaTBR.NAT:rvBS TO TJIB PROJECT
SBRB/R.RI ALTERNATIVES AND SPECIAL ROADWAY COHSIDBRATIOHS
The EIR for the SHRE/RRI project evaluated a No Project
alternative and 15 additional "Special Roadway Considerations"
which consist of alternative configurations of roadways and related
improvements for the Sand Hill Corridor. The Council has
considered each of these potential alternatives to the approved
project and finds that each of the identified alternatives and
special roadway considerations is infeasible (except as set forth
below) and/or is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of
another public agency. The findings set forth below stating this
Council's reasons for rejecting each alternative in favor of the
proposed project describe several separate grounds for rejecting
each alternative, each of which this Council has detel:mined
constitutes an independent basis for this Council's decision to
approve the project and to reject the proposed alternative.
In considering these alternatives and spec~a~ roadway
considerations, the Council recognizes that major elements of the
project are located outside the territory of the City and that
jurisdiction and responsibility for approval, rejection and
consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures for these
elements of the project is vested .in other public agencies.
Primary jurisdiction and authority is vested in the City of r~enlo
Park, although approval of certain improvements and mitigation
measures related to the project will be required from the County of
Santa Clara and County of San Mateo. The Council also recognizes
that approval of the San Francisquito Creek bridge widening element
of the project will, as a practical matter, require approval from
both the City of Palo Alto and City of Menlo Park since portions of
the project site lie within both jurisdictions. In considering the
alternatives and special roadway considerations other than the No
Project alternative and Special Roadway Consideration No. S~ the
Council recommends that basic elements of the project located
within Menlo Park also be approved by Menlo Park. The Council also
finds, however, that in the event that those portions of ·the
project located within Menlo Park are not approved, or are only
partially approved, the Council's findings concerning the
feasibility and desirability of each of the alternatives and
Special Roadway Considerations be] ·:>W would remain the same and the
Council would find the approved project to be the preferable
alternative and would therefore approve the project regardless of
approval or non-approval of elements of the project subject to
authority of Menlo Park and/or other responsible agencies. As
further discussed in relation to Special Roadway Consideration No.
5, the Council specifically makes this finding with respect to the
potential alternative scenario in which the City of Menlo Park were
to elect not to approve widening of Sand Hill Road to four lanes
within its jurisdiction notwithstanding approvals granted by the
Council for expansion of portions of Sand Hill Road to four lanes
within the City's jurisdiction.
58
970702 !ac 0031590
• •
No Project (No Action/No Development) Alternative
Under this alternative, none of the proposed area roadway
improvements would be constructed. The Council finds that this
alternative is infeasible and unacceptable because it would result
in continuing degradation of traffic conditions in the Sand Hill
Corridor and surrounding area, would not provide road improvements
necessary to serve the Stanford West Apartments and Stanford West
Senior Housing projects approved by the Ccuncil and would not meet
any other objectives of the project.
The Sand Hill Road Extension, Expansion and Related Roadway
Improvements are intended to provide a comprehensive package of
road improvements to serve existing and expected cumulative traffic
in the project area and to accommodate additional traffic generated
by the Stanford West Apartments~ Stanford West Senior Housing and
Stanford Shopping Center Expansion projects. Analysis performed in
the EIR., and. amply documented by public testimony in hearings on
the Sand Hill Corridor projects demonstrates that Sand Hill Road
and several key intersections within the project area are already
functioning at unacceptable or marginally acceptable levels of
service. Due to the limited capacity of Sand Hill Road and lack .of
direct and logical connection to El Camino Real 1 many vehicles also
utilize residential streets to traverse the area, resulting in
adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods. The EIR analysis
also indicates that cumulative traffic will continue to increase in
the area whether or not the proposed road improvements are
implementedr resulting in continuing overall degradation of
area -wide traffic conditions, increased delays and unacceptable
levels of service at critical intersections and continued increases
in use of residential streets by commuter and other through
traffic. Approval of the Stanford West Apartments and Stanford
West Senior Housing projects without approval of elements of the
SHRE/RRI project would significantly further worsen conditions in
the area of these projects and at critical intersections utilized
by traffic from these projects. These impacts would be further
compounded by continued expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center,
whether up to the approximately 49,000 square feet allowed by prior
City zoning approvals or through the addition of further square
footage allowed in connection with the proposed Stanford Shopping
Center Expansion project.
The Council has determined that approval of the Stanford West
Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing projects is desirable
and necessary to pennit the City to achieve City housing goals and
objectives. In order to provide vehicle access and egress to these
residential projects at acceptable levels of service and to also
provide additional roadway capacity to accommodate expected
cumulative traffic increases in the Sand Hill Corridor, and to
reduce undesirable use of residential and secondary streets in the
project area for through traffic, the Council finds it is necessary
to undertake substantial improvements to the existing road network
in the Sand Hill Corridor. The approved project has been
carefully designed to provide needed improvements without
unnecessary or excessive environmental costs and in the judgment of
59
970702 Ia~ 0031390
• •
the Council provides the overall best available solution for area
transportation needs.
Reau,~a Scale Roadway Alternative~
The EIR evaluated an alternative to the proposed SHRE/RRI
project consisting of improvements to selected intersections in the
project area, but without widening or extension of Sand Hill Road
and major improvements to any other roadways included in the
SHRE/RRI project.
The Council finds that the Reduced Scale Roadway alternative
is infeasible and unacceptable because it would not achieve the
major objective of the project of providing and improving long-term
regional traffic capacity in the Sand Hill Road corridor, and would
not as effectively achieve the project objectives of accommodating
locally generated traffic, including traffic from the Stanford West
Apartments and Stanford West Senior Housing and Stanford Shopping
Center Expansion projects at acceptable levels of service. The
Draft EIR concluded that the intersection improvements included in
the Reduced Scale Roadway alternative would mitigate many of the
effects of increased traffic from the Sand Hill Corridor
development projects, but would not provide any relief from the
existing unsatisfactory arterial level of service on Sand Hill Road
or from further degradation of existing conditions on Sand Hill
Road anticipated to result from cumulative traffi~ increases
unrelated to the proposed Sand Hill Corridor projects.
Because this alternative does not provide for substantial
irnprov~·nent of conditions for through traffic on Sand Hill Road, it
also would not achieve the project objective of reducing traffic on
secondary and residential streets in the area currently used as
alternative travel routes to avoid congestion on Sand.Hill Road.
Overall, this alternative would not result ··in any
comprehensive or long-term solution for area traffic problems and
would at most result .in maintenance or small improvements in levels
of service at individual intersections in the project area.
Project With Four Lane Sand Hill Road Extension
As originally proposed and evaluated in the DEIR, the Sand
Hill Road extension element of the SHRE/RRI project provided for: a
four lane extension of Sand Hill Road from Arboretum to El Camino
Real. The Council rejected this proposed project in favor of the
approved project on the grounds that the four lane extension would
result in more severe impacts in terms of change of character of
the Sand Hill Corridor and would result in overall. higher volumes
of traffic on Sand Hill Road due to the propensity of the four lane
road to draw traffic to Sand Hill Road. As approved, the project
will provide acceptable levels of service at the Sand Hill Road/El
Camino and Sand Hill Road/Arboretum intersections notwithstanding
the reduction of the Sand Hill Road extension to two lanes, and
will result in somewhat reduced volumes of traffic at other
intersections along Sand Hill Road. While the approved project
60
970702 lac 0031 :S90
-------------------------------• •
will net achieve all of t.he regional traffic benefits of the
project as effectively as the project with a four-lane extension,
the Council finds that the two lane extension, coupled with
expansion of Sand Hill Road to four lanes east of Arboretum, and
the other roadway improvements, provides the best overall balancing
of l~al and regional traffic demands with the City's objectives of
maintaining the overall character of the area to the extent
possible and avoiding encouragement of continued overuse and
excessive reliance on automobiles as a primary means of travel.
Special Roadway Consid~~tion 1: ~~o-Lane Extension of Sand Hill
~
Special Roadway Consideration 1, as discussed in the DEIR,
would substitute a two-lane, rather than a four-lane, extension of
Sand Hill Road from Arboretum Drive to El Camino Real. The
SHRE/RRI project as approved by the Council substantially
implements this alternative.
~cial Road·...;ay Consid~ration 2: Two-Lane Extension of Sand Hill
Road/Limited Turn Movements at El Ca..'Tlino Real
SRC 2 assu .. 1-nes a two-lane extension of Sand Hill Road, similar
to SRC 1, but with only right-in~ left-in, and right-out turning
movements allowed between Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real.
Southbound and northbound El Camino Real traffic would be allowed
to turn into the new tw·o-lane roadway extension, but eastbound Sand
Hill Road traffic ~'ould only be allowed to turn right (southbound)
ont.o El Camino Real. Through movements across El Camino Real
between Sand Hill Road and Alrra Street would remain prohibited.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and
unacceptable because it would unduly restrict the flow of area
traffic and not as effectively achieve the overall traffi~. service
objectives of the project. This alternative also would not have
any substantial environmental advantages over the approved project.
SRC 2 would require vehicles traveling east on Sand Hill Road to
destinations north of Sand Hill Road to either utilize Arborett~
and Quarry roads or other indirect routes to El Camino, thus
unnecessarily increasing traffic on these roads and affected
intersections, or to locate alternate routes through residential
streets or secondary roadways in Menlo Park which are not intended
for such traffic~ Approximately 65% of the displaced traffic would
be expected to utilize Arboretum Drive and Quarry Road to reach El
Camino resulting in decreased LOS at the Quarry Road/El Camino
intersection unless additional turning lanes are provided at that
location~ Remaining traffic would be diverted to other area roads,
including roads through Menlo Park residential areas. The Council
believes that the overall transportation service and management
objectives of the project are better served by providing for direct
to El Camino Real for east-bound traffic from Sand Hill Road.
61
970702 lac 0031590
• •
Special Roadway Cons isiera.t i,on 3 : lY-Q-tansa Sxtension with NQ
Widening of San~ Hill R2ag
SRC 3 would provide a two-lane extension of Sand Hill Road
from Arboretum Drive to El Camino Real, with no widening of Sand
Hill Road west of Arboretum. All existing portions of Sand Hill
Road would remain at the current number of lanes. No frontage road
would be constructed and the Sand Hill Road bridge would not be
widened.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and
unacceptable because it would rest~lt in unacceptable overall
traffic levels of service in the affected area and would not as
effectively achieve the long term traffic management objectives of
the project.
Overall, SRC 3 would result in significantly different travel
conditions than the approved p::-oj ects, due to the absence of
additional capacity en Sand Hill Road. While SRC 3 would provide
a two-lane direct connection between Sand Hill Road and El Camino,
thus attracting additional traffic to Sand Hill Road; SRC 3 does
not provide tor any substantial ir~crease in traffic capacity alo.ng
portions of Sand Hill Road east of Arboretu..~L. This section of Sand
Hill Road will be required to ser.re not only exis·ting and expected
cmmllative traffic but additional local and regional traffic which
will result from the approved Sand Hill Corridor development
projects and increased traffic resulti:1g fro.'n the extension of Sand
Hill Road through to El Camino Real. In the absence of increased
capacity provided by expansion of Sand Hill Road to four lanes and
related intersection improvements, this additional traffic will
result in unacceptable congestion and delay on Sand Hill Road.
Although this alternative would reduce the effects of the project
on existing trees, on San Francisquito Creek and on an identified
archaeological site, the Council finds that these impacts can and
have been adequately mitigated through mitigation measures adopted
in the conditions for the approved project. Implementation of this
alternative would also reduce the attractiveness of Sand Hill Road
as an alternative to residential and secondary streets in the area,
primarily in Menlo Park, thus reducing or eliminating another
potential beneficial effe::.t of the approved project~ Overall, ·the
Council fintfs that the balancing of local and regional
transportation de~ands and environmental and planning
considerations is best achieved by expansion of those portions of
Sand Hill Road located east of Arboretum to provide needed
additional traffic capacity.
Special Roadway Consideration 4: No Extension. No Widening of Sand
Hill Road
SRC 4 assumes there would be no extension of Sand Hill Road
from Arboretum Road to El Camdno Real~ nor widening of the existing
Sand Hill Road west of Arboretum Road. The proposed Frontage Road,
parallel to Sand Hill Road between the Creek and Santa Cruz Avenue
would not be constructed. However, the other components of the
proposed roadway improvement plan, including the extension of Stock
62
970702 lac 0031590
• •
Farm Road to Sand Hill Road, the construction of Vineyard Lane, the
extension and improvement to Palo Roadt the modifications to El
Camino Real, and the modification of Quarry Road, would be
completed.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and
unacceptable because it would not achieve any of the major long
term traffic management objectives of the project and would result
in unacceptable overall traffic conditions in the project area due
to expected increased cumulative traffic and traffic from the
approved Sand Hill Corridor development projects. This alternative
is similar to the No Project alternative except that it provides
for limited localized road improvEml.ents and improved connections to
Sand Hill Road in the imrnediate project area. While these
improvements would result in some localized traffic circulation
benefits, they would not provide additional traffic capacity on
Sand Hill Road needed to avoid adverse imoacts frcm the addition of
significant future cumulative traffic and .. tra.ffic from the approved
Sand Hill Corridor development projects. As a result, significant
increases in congestion and delay in the Sand Hill Road corridor
would result under this alternative, despite the local i~provements
which would be provided.
SJ;?ecial Roadway Consideration 5: No Improvements to Sand Hill Roaq
West of San Francisquito Creek
SRC 5 includes the four-lane extension of Sand Hill Road to El
Camino Real, as well as other proposed roadway improvements.
However, Sand Hill Road would be widened only east of San
Francisquito Creek to Arboretum Road. No improvements would be
made to the portion of Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, or to the Sand
Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection. The Sand Hill Road
Bridge over San Francisquito Creek would not be widened, and the
intersection of Oak Avenue and Sand Hill Road would not be altered4
The Frontage Road, parallel to Sand Hill Road between Oak Avenue
and Santa Cruz Avenue, would not be constructed. This SRC
describes the condition in San Mateo County in the event that the
City of Menlo Park were to choose not to approve the portion of the
Sand Hill Road Widening project (including the Sand Hill Road
Bridge) located within its jurisdiction.
With respect to those portions of the SHRE/RRI project located
within the City of Palo Alto, the Council finds that the four lane
extension aspect of this alternative is infeasible and unacceptable
for the reasons stated with respect the nproject With Four Lane
Sand Hill Road Extension" alternative/ i.e. that the project would
have unacceptable adverse impacts on the character of the
surrounding area. The City's overall transportation objectives can
be achieved with less impact on the existing character of the area
with the two-lane extension of Sand Hill Road.
With respect to those portions of the project located outside
the City's territory, the Council recognizes that authority and
responsibility for approval of these elements of the project is
vested in other public agencies, primarily the City of Menlo Park.
63
970702 tac 0031 590
• •
The Council, however, does not recommend this alternative and
believes that it is infeasible and unacceptable in the long ter.m.
This alternative would result in continuing deterioration of
traffic conditions and unacceptable traffic levels of service in
the affected area and would not achieve the long term traffic
management objectives of the project. While this alternative would
result in substantial improvements within the City of Palo Alto,
the restriction of Sand Hill Road to two lanes at San Francisquito
Creek would continue to limit the capacity of Sand Hill Road and
would have substantially the same effect as SRC 3, i.e. substantial
degradation of traffic conditions on Sand Hill Road due to the
addition of cumulative traffic and traffic from the approved Sand
Hill Corridor development projects. In addition, this alternative
does not provide for improvements along portions of Sand Hill Road
within Menlo Park which were included in the project to improve or
eliminate already existing traffic-related noise and aesthetic
problems experienced by neighboring residents. Adoption of this
alternative by Menlo Park would therefore result in worse impacts
for some Menlo Park residents than the approved project. The
Council finds that adverse environmental impacts of the project on
San Francisquito Creek and within Menlo Park can be adequately
mitigated through measures identified in the EIR for the project
which may be implemented by the City and Menlo Park. Continuation
of the two-lane status of Sand Hill Road will not serve the
regional traffic service objectives of the project and will result
in worse traffic related impacts, including noise, air pollution,
travel time delays and degraded levels of service than the approved
project and is not in the best interests of any public agency nor
of citizens affected by the project.
Special Roadway Consideration 6: Alma Street Closure at Sand Hill
Road/El Camino Real Intersection
SRC 6 includes all of the proposed roadway improvements,
except that the existing Alma Street would be closed immediately
east of El Camino Real. There would not be a connection between
Alma Street and El Camino Real, nor between Al~a Street and Sand
Hill Road.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible ~nd
unacceptable because it would result in decreased traffic mobility
and degraded levels of services on a n~~er of streets in Palo Alto
east of El Camino. Implementation of this alternative would not
have any substantial positive or negative effect on impacts related
to the Sand Hill Corridor projects. Analysis in the EIR, however 1
indicates that this alternative would have significant adverse
impacts to the downtown Palo Alto area south of Lytton. This
impacts are considered undesirable and unacceptable by the Council.
Special Roadway Consideration 7: Through Movement Allowed from
Sand Hill Road to Alma Stre~t
SRC 7 would allow through traffic from Alma across El Camino
onto Sand Hill Road and vice versa, and westbound left turns from
64
970702 lac 0031 S90
• •
El Camdno onto Sand Hill Road, unlike the proposed project. SRC 7
would otherwise be the same as the proposed project.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and
unacceptable because it would result in unacceptable deterioration
of traffic level of service at the El Camino/Sand Hill Road
intersection and unacceptable traffic impacts and potential
increased traffic-related noise on residential streets in the City.
SRC 7 would result in a through route from Sand Hill Road directly
to the downtown Palo Alto area, thus attracting increased vehicle
trips to City roadways such as Hawthorn, Everett and Lytton and
through adjoining residential areas. In addition, by adding
cross-traffic and increased numbers of signalized turning movements
at the intersection of El Camino and Sand Hill Road, this
alternative would result in substantial deterioration of level of
service at this intersection from LOS C with the approved project
to LOS E under SRC 7. These significant impacts are not
sufficiently offset by possible benefits to mobility choices to
justify approval of this SRC.
S!;!ecial Roadwav Consideration 8: Right-In. Left-Out Only at Sand
Hill Road/Oak Avenue Intersectioq
SRC 8 assumes approval of all components of the proposed
project~ with the exception that right hand turns from soutrmound
lane of Oak Hill Road onto Sand Hill Road (westbound) would be
prohibited. Only the southbound left turn from Oak to eastbound
Sand Hillt and the inbound right turn from westbound Sand Hill to
Oak Avenue, would be permitted under SRC 8.
The changes to the SHRE/RRI project proposed in SRC 8 are
located outside of the City's territory. Jurisdiction and
responsibility for consideration and possibl~ adoption of this
alternativt: is vested the City of ~~enlo Park. The Council,
however, does not recommend approval of this alternati've. The
possible benefit of SRC 8 is a reduction of 180 westbound peak hour
vehicle trips on Sand Hill Road west of Oak Road, and some
corresponding reduction of southbound traffic on Oak Road near Sand
Hill Road. This traffic, however, would be redistributed on other
area roads including residential streets, thus conflicting with ·one
of the major traffic management objectives of the project of
reducing traffic on residential and secondary roadways in the area
of the project.
Special Roadway Consideration 9: Full Movement at Sand Hill
Road/Oak Avenue Intersection
SRC 9 provides for a full intersection at Sand Hill Road/Oak
Avenue. Unlike the proposed project, the left turn from eastbound
Sand Hill Road to Oak Avenue would be permitted.
The only changes to the SHRE/RRI project proposed in SRC 9 are
located outside of the City's territory. Jurisdiction and
responsibility for consideration and possible adoption of this
alternative is vested in City of Menlo Park. The Council, however,
65
970702 lac 0031 :S90
• •
does not recoamend approval of this alternative. The benefit of
SRC 9 consists of an ~ncrease in mobility and convenience
identifiable for residents of the area near Oak Avenue south of
Sand Hill Road. This benefit will be offset by deterioration in
traffic LOS at the oak Avenue/Sand Hill Road intersection from LOS
B to LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and also by
potential increases in traffic through adjoining residential areas.
These adverse results are not justified by the localized benefits
of SRC 9 and conflict with the larger local and regional traffic
management objectives of the project.
Special Roadway ConsideratiQn 10: Oak Avenue Closure
SRC 10 consists of const~~ction of all roadway and
intersection improvements of the originally proposed project,
except that Oak Avenue would be closed immediately north of Vine
Street, and therefore would not con..11ect with Sand Hill Road. There
would be a cul-de-sac at this new terminus of Oak Avenue. Traffic
from Vine Street would access Sand Hill Road via a connection using
the existing segment. of Oak Avenue.
The changes to the SHRE/RRI project proposed in SRC 10 are
located outside of the City's ~erritory. Jurisdiction and
responsibility for consideration and adoption of this alternative
is vested in the City of Menlo Park. The Council does not make any
reconmendation for or against approval of this alternative. SRC 10
would not resuJ.t in any significant beneficial or adverse impacts
on area-wide or reqional traffic conditions. SRC 10 would result
in a substantial reduction of traffic and related noise on Oak
Avenue, but increas~~ traffic on other local streets resulting from
the diversion of traffic from Oak Avenue. The Council finds that
approval or disapproval of this alternative is a policy question
appropriately resolved by the City of Menlo Park.
Special Roadway Considerstion 11: No Direct Access to Sand Hill
Road from Leland and Stanford Avenues ·~
SRC 11 would eliminate direct connections between Sand Hill
Road and Leland and Stanford Avenues across the proposed Frontage
Road. This would allow construction of a soundwall in the
landscape median/berm proposed to be located between Sand Hill ·Road
and the adjacent residences, should one be desired or required.
The proposed Frontage Road would end in a cul-de-sac west of Oak
Avenue, and the oak Avenue/Sand Hill Road intersection would remain
in its existing configuration.
The changes to the SHRE/RRI project proposed in SRC 11 are
located outside of the City's territory. Jurisdiction and
responsibility for consideration and possible adoption of this
alternative is vested in other public agencies, specifically the
City of Menlo Park and County of San Mateo. The Council does not
make any recommendation for or against approval of this
alternative. SRC 1.1 would not significantly affect traffic
conditions on Sand Hill Road or at any major intersection. This
alternative would result in trade-offs between accessibility to the
66
910102 &ac 003 l ,90
• •
University Heights neighborhood, and reduction in local traffic and
noise impacts caused by the reconfiguration of local roadways and
construction of a noise wall. The Council finds that approval or
disapproval of this alternative is a policy question appropriately
resolved by the City of Menlo Park and County of San Mateo~
Special Roadway Con§.;i.derp.tion 12: No StQck Fr}.rm Road Connection
SRC 12 consists of all roadway improvements as originally
proposed, except that the extension of Stock Farm Road from the
Stanford Campus to Sand Hill Road would not be constructed. This
SRC considers the effects of failure of the County of Santa Clara
to grant necessary approvals for the Stock Farm road extension ..
The changes to the proposed project included in SRC 12 are
located in unincorporated territory of the County of Santa Clara.
Jurisdiction and responsibil i t.y for consideration and possible
adoption of this alternative is therefore vested in the County of
Santa Clara. The Council, however, does not recom.:"Tlend adoption of
this alternative. Although not a critical element of the proposed
project, the Stock Farm Road extension would permit traffic
entering and leaving the Stanford University central facilities ko
avoid portions of Sand Hill Road to the east of the proposed Stock
Farm/Sand Hill Road intersection, t..hus reducing congestion in that
area. The Stock Farm/Sand Hill Ro,.1.d coru"1ection also contributes to
more efficient routing of traffic through or around the Santa
Cruz/Sand Hill Road and Santa Cruz/Alpine/"Tunipero Serra
i.ntersections. Elimination of the Stock Farm Road extension would
decrease the moderately beneficial effect of the SHRE/RRI project
at these two intersections.
Special Roadway Consideration 13: Two-La.ne Quarry Roa.d with Single
Left Turn Lanes
SRC 13 assumes that Quarry Road would remain a two-lane road
rather than be expanded to four lanes, and that a single left-turn
lane would be provided on northbound El Camino Real. The
intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real, however, would be
modified to allow all movements, unlike the present configuration
which allows only the right turn in from southbound El Camino Real.
The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and
unacceptable because it would interfere with achievement of the
traffic management objectives of the SHRE/RRI project and would
result in unacceptable traffic conflicts on Quarry Road due to the
location of new parking facilities approved as part of the Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion along Quarry Road. The principal effect
of SRC 13 on traffic would be to divert local traffic to or from El
Camino Real to other local east-west streets 1 primarily Palm Drive
and the Sand Hill Road extension, \o.Tith resulting increases in
vehicle trips on those streets. With the addition of substantial
new parking facilities along Quarry Road, increased lane capacity
on Quarry Road is also necessary to avoid substantial conflicts
among vehicles traveling Quarry Road and vehicles entering and
leaving parking structures, with resulting delays and increased
67
970'702 lac 0031.590
• •
accident potential. Approval of this alternative would result in
traffic conditions on Quarry Road which are unacceptable to the
Council.
Special Roadway Consideration 14; Aggressiv§ Transportation Dgmand
Measures
SRC 14 assumes that aggressive Transportation Demand Measures
(TOM) would be successfully implemented in the cities of Palo Alto
and Menlo Park. This SRC assumes also that Stanford properties
covered under the General Use Permit (GUP) would not generate any
net new trips, per the General Use Permit agreement. All elements
of the proposed project would still be implemented.
The Council finds that achievement of the traffic reductions
assumed by SRC 14 is not feasible due to lack of feasible means of
implementing or enforcing TDM re~uirements of the magnitude
necessar}~ to achieve substantial traffic reductions in the project
area. In addition, jurisdiction and responsibility for
implementation and enforcement of mandatory TDM programs would be
vested in other public agencies ov(2r which the City has no control.
The Council strongly supports TDM programs. The City of Palo Alto
currently offers TDM programs for its employees and provides
support for private employers which seek to implement TDM measures
on a voluntary basis.. Stanford University has also implemented a
number of TDM measures in conjunction with policies of its general
use permit. The Council finds that other public agencies can and
should adopt similar measures. The City of Menlo Park currently
provides support for voluntary TDM measures. However, the City and
neighboring jurisdictions currently lack authority to impose direct
mandatory TDM requirements on existing or proposed development.
While other measures suggested in the EIR such as transit studies
and increases in parking fees can be considered by the City and
neighboring jurisdictions as part of any comprehensive
transportation and traffic management strategy, adoption of such
measures is beyond the scope of approvals granted for the SHRE/RRI
project.
Special Roadway Consideration 15: Addition of Connecting Road
between Main Street {Stanford West Apartments} and Oak Cr.~
Apartments
SRC 15 involves the addition of a road connecting the eastern
end of the Oak Creek Apartments with Main Street in the Stanford
·West Apartments, immediately north of the intersection of Main
Street/Sand Hill Road/Pasteur Drive.
The Council gave extensive consideration to the proposed Oak
Creek Apartments connector in its deliberations on the Stanford
West Apartments project and was prepar~d to require implementation
of this measure as a condition of project approval, notwithstanding
objections received from the applicant due to the potential adverse
effect of the connector road on archaeological resources. The
objective of the Council was to promote a sense of community and
neighborhood connection between the Oak Creek Apartments and
68
970702 lac 0031.590
• •
Stanford West Apartments. Communications received from the owners
of the Oak Creek Apartments, however, indicate that these private
property owners do not support and will not consent to the
connector road4 The Council finds that lack of consent from
affected property owners makes implementation of the proposed
connector roadway infeasible. The Stanford West Apartments project
has been revised to include an unpaved bicycle and pedestrian path
between the Oak Creek Apartments and Stanford West Apartments.
This pathway will serve to promote the Council's objective of
promoting community feeling and interchange between the adjoining
apartment projects by promoting pedestrian and bicycle travel
between the projects and reducing any sense of separateness caused
by the open space area between the projects.
Alternatives Proposed in Public Comments
Proposed Alpine Road Alternative
During seeping for the EIR and in comments on the DEIR,
various members of the public proposed, as an alternative to
widening Sand Hill Road to four lanes, an alternative consisting of
constructing a new arterial roadway from Alpine Road througn
Stanford campus lands to connect with major roadways in Palo Alto.
The stated purpose of this alternative is to relieve the need for
widening on Sand Hill Road. No specific route has been suggested
for this alternative, although a number of commenters have
recommended that the new roadway connect to and utilize existing
roadways on the Stanford campus to the extent practical. Following
scoping for the EIR, City staff determined that this alternative
was not feasible and did not warrant further study in the EIR
because of potential economic and environmental costs of the
proposed alternative roa.dway. The reasons for rejection of this
alternative were further discussed in responses to comments on the
DEIR.
The Council also finds that the Alpine Road alfernative is
infeasible because it would result in unacceptable environmental
impacts, unacceptable economic costs and is speculative and
uncertain of implementation due to dependency upon approvals by the.
Counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara and inconsistency with
existing County land use policies and circulation plans. The
Council also finds that this alternative was correctly determined
to be infeasible in seeping for the EIR, and did not merit further
consideration in the EIR nor preparation and circulation of a
supplemental EIR.
Implementation of this alternative, regardless of the route
finally selected, would require construction of a new roadway
across currently undisturbed portions of San Francisquito Creek and
across existing open space lands mapped by Stanford as having
significant environmental value. Extensive grading would be
required. Construction and operation of the roadway would further
serve to divide an existing large contiguous area of natural open
space and would have the potential to induce new development into
this area, potentially resulting in further substantial
69
970702 lac 0031590
• •
environmental ~eta. Implementation of this alternative is also
highly speculative in that implementation would require internal
approvals from Stanford University and approval by the Counties of
Santa Clara and San Mateo. Such approvals, if granted at all, are
not certain to occur within a reasonable time period under the
existing land use plans for the affected area. The City Council
also believes that routing of major public traffic route through
the existing Stanford central campus area is neither desirable nor
compatible with the academic mission of the university ..
Implementation of this alternative would also require a new
signalized intersection where the proposed new roadway crossed
Junipero Serra Boulevard, resulting in potential additional traffic
delays along this major travel route. For all of the above reasons
the proposed alternative road could not feasibly obtain any major
objective of the Sand Hill Road extension and widening project at
less environmental cost than the project as presently proposed and
approved in part by the Council~
...
70
970'701 lac 003) ,90
• •
BXBl:BIT P
~ J)RIVB PARCIL ANHBXATION
ComJCIL PDmDlGS COifCB.RlfDIG IUTIGATION OP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A1ID COJISIDBR.ATJ:OH OP ALTERNATIVES
During preparation of the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR")
for the Sand Hill Corridor projects it was determined that
implementation of the projects \tould result in creation of a new,
undeveloped 2.5 acre parcel of land located immediately south of
Sand Hill Road and east of the realign~ent portion of Pasteur Drive
proposed as an element of the Sand Hill Road Extension and Related
Roadway Improvements projects. k'1.nexat ion of this newly created
parcel from the County of Santa Clara to the City of Palo Alto has
been proposed in conjunction with the Sand Hill Corridor projects.
No development of this land is proposed or contemplated at this
time. However, t.he annexation and assumed pre-zoning of this
parcel was designated as a KprojectH for purposes of the EIR, and
potential long term impacts which may result from eventual
development of the Pasteur Drive Parcel evaluated in the EIR.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a) and CEQA
Guidelines section 15091 1 the Council has considered the identified
potential future impacts of annexation and pre-zoning, the
mitigation measures for these potential impacts identified in the
EIR and the alternatives to the project identified in the EIR in
light of all evidence in the administrative record of proceedings
on the Sand Hill Corridor projects, and makes the following
findings.
I. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES:
A. Annexation of the Pasteur Drive Parcel will not result in
any physical changes on the parcel or any other changes to the
existing physical conditions on or around the parcel, and there~ore
will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The Council therefore has not adopted any changes or mitigation
measures for the project. in conjunction with annexation of the
parcel.
B. Future development of the Pasteur Drive Parcel has the
potential to result in significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the EIR. Jurisdiction and
responsibility for adoption and implementation of mitigation
measures for these identified inqXicts will be vested in the City of
Palo Alto and its various departments and subdivisions. The
Council finds that the recommended mitigation measures or
equivalent measures can and should be adopted by the City in
connection with future development approvals and that these
mitigation measures, if adopted and implemented, will lessen all
1
970702 lai:0031S91
• •
significant or potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts of the project to a less than significant level~
1. Cultural Resources. Although no significant
archaeological or other cultural resources are presently known to
exist on or adjacent to the site, development of the site could
possibly result in impacts to currently unknown archaeological
resources.
Mitigation MeAsures: ~tigation measure 5.1·1 requires
that a qualified archaeologist be retained to monitor construction
activities. In the event that significant archaeological resources
or Native American burials are discovered during construction,
construction work in the area will be halted and further
appropriate mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist
shall be implemented.
The Council finds that implementation of this mitigation
measure will reduce the poter1t ial adverse impact on archaeological
resources to a less than significant level. The measure irr~lernents
standard practices for monitoring construction and implementing
further mitigation measures as needed to avoid impacts to any
archaeological resources discovered on the site. ·
2. Air Ouality--Constrllct.ion Dust. Dust generated by
construction activities on the site could lead to violations of
federal or state standards for PMlO emissions and could adversely
affected nearby properties, including particularly residents of the
1100 Welch Road apartment complex.
Mitigation Measures~ Mitigation measure 5.1-2 requires
implementation mitigation measure 4.5-1, which provides for
implementation of the following dust control measures as needed to
prevent dust emissions from the site during construction:
970702 lac 003l.S91
Water all active construction areas., at least twice
a day, or as needed to prevent visible dust plumes
from_blowing off-site.
Use · tarpaulins or other effective covers ~or
on-site storage piles and for haul trucks on public
streets.
Pave, apply water three times daily., or apply
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas during
construction.
Sweep all paved access routest parking areas, and
stag·ing areas daily (preferably with water
sweepers) .
Sweep streets daily {preferably with water
sweepers) if visible amounts of soil material is
carried onto public streets.
2
• •
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds
exceed 25 mph.
The last mitigation would be applicable to the project
due to the presence of the 1100 Welch Road apartments immediately
adjacent to the site.
The Council finds that implementation of these measures
will lessen the potential dust emission impact to a less t.han
significant level. Exceedance of the BAAQMD threshold of
significance of 80 lbs/day for PMlO emissions during construction
is unlikely due to the small size of the parcel. Implementation of
twice daily watering has been shown to reduce construction site ~0 emissions by at least 50 percent. This and other measures wili
ensure that PMlO emissions during construction are reduced to
levels well below the identified threshold of significance.
3. Noise. Existing noise data gathered at the
neighboring Welch Road apartments site indicates tha.t residents of
the project site are likely to be exposed to traffic generated
noise of up to 64 dBa. Construction activity on the site could
also result in significant noise impacts on neighboring properties,
particularly the Welsh Road apartments. ·
Mitigation Measures: With respect to noise impacts on
future residents, exposure to exterior noise levels of up to 64 dBa
along the portions of the site nearest Sand Hill Road may be
unavoidable. Reduction of interior noise levels to an acceptable
level of 45 dBa or less can and will be achieved through
incorporation of construction techniques and materials as required
by law. Because most living activities on the site will be
conducted indoors, or may be concentrated in areas of the site away
from Sand Hill Road, the Council finds that these measures will
reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level.
With respect to construction phase noise impacts~
mitigation measure 5.1-3 requires implementation of mitigation
measure 4.6-1. Mitigation measure 4.6-1 requires implementation of
the following measures¥
Mitigati~n measure 4.6-l(a) provides that construction
activities will be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and if weekend work is necessary, to the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and to the hours of
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mitigation measure 4.6-l(b) provides that construction
equipment shall be outfitted and maintained with noise reduction
devices (i.e., mufflers, enclosures for stationary equipment, etc.)
to obtain at least an average 10 dBA reduction shown feasible in
Table 4.6-5.
Mitigation measure 4. 6-1 (c) provides that stationary
noise sources (e.g., compressors, concrete mixers, etc.) shall be
located on portions of the sites furthest away from residential and
3
970702 lac 0031 S91
• •
other noise-sensitive areas, and that acoustic shielding shall be
used with such equipment.
The Council finds that implementation of these measures
will reduce potential construction noise impacts on neighboring
·residents to a less than significant level. While operation of
heavy equipment on the site and other construction activities could
result in potential noise impacts. However, given the relatively
small size and limited duration of anticipated construction
activities, implementation of these mitigation measures will limit
noise impacts sufficiently to preclude significant impacts on
neighboring residents.
4. Biological Impacts. Development of the site could
potentially damage or require removal of four existing mature oak
trees on the site.
Mitigation Measures: It is probable that at least three
of the oak trees on the site could be avoided by construction due
to their location near Sand Hill Road. Mitigation measures 5.1-4
provides, however, that in the event that trees will potentially be
lost or damaged due to proposed development 1 mitigation shall be
provided in acco~dance with mitigation measure 4.7-1, which
provides for the following measures:
Mitigation measure 4.7-l(a) requires that native trees
removed for the projects sha.ll be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 on a
per acre basis with specimens of the same species obtained from
locally collected stock, and provides for additional replanting if
survival rates fall below 80 percent$
Mitigation measure. 4. 7-1 (b) requires
landscape trees removed for the projects be
two-to-one basis.
that non-native
replaced on a
Mitigation measure 4.7-l{c) provides tha~ the City shall
contract with an independent arborist to (a) review construction
plans to provide for maximum retention of trees and necessary
additional tree protection measures; b) monitor project
constructioni and c) recommend changes in the tree removal pla~ as
necessary during construction.
Mitigation measure 4.7-l(e) requires that all trees
adjacent to project construction areas which are not removed will
be avo~ded and protected according to specified procedures
incorporated into all construction and/or demolition contracts.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will
lessen the project's potential biological impact to a less than
significant level. These measures provide for protection of as
many trees as possible during project construction and replacement
of all trees removed as a result of the project, with additional
measures to ensure the success of replanting. Due to the small
number and the location of trees on the project site, short term
impacts caused by loss of trees, if any, would not be considered
4
970702 lac 0031 S91
• •
significant. All long term impacts will be fully mitigated by
maturing of replacement trees required by the adopted mitigation.
5. aeology, Soils and Seismicity. Development on the
site would be subject to potential hazards from expansive or weak
soils encountered during construction and from earthquakes
following construction.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measure 5.1-5 recommends
implementation of mitigation measures 4.8-4{a) and (b).
Mitigation measure 4. 8-4 (a) provides that documented
site-specific seismic-restraint criteria will be incorporated in
the design of foundations and structures of all future development
on the site, including (1) minimum seism . .:.c-resistant design
standards shall conform to the CUBC Seismic Zone 4 Standards; {2}
additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design
criteria shall be incorporated as necessary, based on the
site-specific engineering recorr>.mendations; (3) site preparation
shall be supervised by geological or geotechnical consultants; (4)
~as built~ maps and a report shall be filed with the City1 showing
details of the site geology, the location and type of
seismic-restraint faci.lities 1 and docuznenting satisfactory seismic
performance for buildings, roads, foundations and underground
utilities~
Mitigation measure 4.8-4(b) requires on-site oversight,
verification and reporting by registered geological or geotechnical
engineering consultants where deemed appropriate by the City's
Chief Building Official.
The Council finds that adoption of these mitigation
measures will lessen the identified potential geological impacts to
a less than significant level. These measures require
~lementation of sound engineering practices and standards which
will preclude construction of unsafe buildings or.~mprovements on
the property.
6. Hydrology and Water Quality. Construction
activiti~s and an increase in paved areas on the site a!ter
development. could increase sedimentation or contamination in San
Francisquito Creek.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measure 5.1-6 requires
implementation of mitigation measures 4.9~5{a) and 4.9-6.
Mitigation measure 4.9-S(a) provides that the City shall
ensure that construction contracts for the project incorporate best
management practices for minimizing potential runoff and
sedimentation impacts from the project site consistent with
requirements of the applicable NPDES Municipal Storm Water permit~
Mitigation measure 4.9-6 requires that development on the
site be required to comply with applicable Comprehensive Plan goals
5
9?0'70llac 0031591
• •
and policies, ordinances and Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) requirements.
The Council finds that adoption of these measures will
lessen the project's potential runoff and sedimentation impacts to
a less than significant level. These measures ensure compliance
with existing regulatory requirements which will preclude
potentially significant impacts.
2.
Approvals granted for annexation and pre-zoning of the Pasteur
Drive Parcel will not result in any direct or immediate changes to
the property or resulting enviror~ntal impacts. Creation of the
Pasteur Drive Parcel is not a result of these approvals but is a
direct a.nd unavoidable physical result of the realignment of
Pasteur Drive proposed and approved as part of the Sand Hill Road
Extension and Related Roadway Improvements project. Rejection of
the proposed annexation and pre-zoning, i.e. a "no-project"
alternative is considered infeasible hy the Council because this
altemative would result in enclosure of a small isolated parcel of
unincorporated County of Santa Clara land within the City east of
Pasteur Drive, which will remain a City road. Annexation of t:he
Pasteur Drive Parcel is ~andated by conventional sound planning and
administrative practices and existing City, County and LAFCO
arillexaticn policies.
While the consideration or granting of approvals for actual
development of the Pasteur Drive Parcel is beyond the scope of
actions currently being considered by the Council with respect to
the property, the Council P4S considered the potential alternative
land uses for the parcel identified in the EIR as alternatives to
the pre-zoning of the property for multiple-family residential
development (~-40}~ The Council finds that each of the identified
is infeasible in view of the following specific social and
environn~ntal considerations.
Open Swce Alternative: Annexation and pre-zoning of the
property for residential development will not preclude Stanford
from retaining the parcel as open space. However, long-~erm
retention of the site as open space would preclude economically
beneficial use by the owner and would preclude new housing
development potentially needed by the City. Due to its small size
and location surrounded by roadways and existing development, the
site has no significant value as wildlife habitat, for
agriculture, for public recreational uses, for preservation of
scenic qualities or any other important open space use. Overall
the Council believes that residential development constitutes the
most logical and desirable usc ;f the property. The City currently
faces a shortage of affordable housing and particularly rental
housing, and this shortage is likely to continue to exist for the
foreseeable future. In contrast to residential development,
permanent restriction of the property for open space uses would not
substantially advance any important City objectives and would
6
970702lac 0031591
• •
preclude potential development of housing r~eeded to meet City and
regional housing goals and objectives.
Comrnerci;al Alternitive: The property could physically be
developed with commercial building suitable for convenience retail
or other neighborhood serving commercial development. Development
for commercial purposes, however, would not avoid or substantially
lessen any impacts associated with residential development of the
site, and would be likE!ly to result in substantially greater
traffic impacts. No evidence received by the Council suggests any
substantial existing or future need for neighborhood facilities at
this location.. Commercial development of the site would also
preclude development of housing which is likely to be needed to
meet City and regional housing objectives. Overall, commercial
development would not result in any significant environmental
advantages over residential development and would represent a less
desirable and beneficial use of the land than housing development.
Medical Office Alternativg: The site could also physically
acco:rmnodate a medical office building, although it is uncertain
that such development would actually be attracted to the site. If
developedr medical office use would not avoid or significantly
reduce any impacts associated ·ll'lith x:esidential development of the
site* and would be likely ~o result in substantially greater
traffic impacts than resident.ia.l development. No evidence received
by the Council suggests any substantial demand for development of
medical offices at this location. Medical office development on
the site would also preclude development of housing which is likely
to be needed to meet City and regional housing objectives.
OVerall, development of medical offices or any similar office and
professional use on the site would not result in any significant
environmental advantages over residential development, and would
represent a less desirable and beneficial use of the land than
housing development.
7
97070llac 0031 '9 J
• •
BXBIBIT •c•
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMBNTS
a. Resolution No. 7687, Amending the Land Use Element of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan Relating to the Streamside Open Space Land
Use Category
b. Resolution No. 7686, Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo
Alto C~rehensive Plan for Lands of Stanford University Located
Generally at 1000 Sand Hill Road (Stanford West Apartment Project}
c. Resolution No. 7689, Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan for Lands of Stanford University Located at
600 and 700 Sand Hill Road (Stanford West Senior Project)
d. Resolution No. 7690, Amending the Land Use Map and the Street
Network Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Relating to Roadway
and Circulation Changes and Changes in the Boundaries of the
Streamside Open Space Area in the Vicinity of the Stanford Shopping
Center
e. Resolution No. 7688, Amending Various Elements of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan Relating to Road Improvements in the Sand
Hill Road Corridor
\}.>.~ 1-·i
t"V'~ ( ~ ;.-
E;V: e ~M
::·>-T lY'.., ,
l)-t'·,~ ·f ~\.t. '
I • •
RESOLUTION NO. ~
RBSOLtrriON OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO THE STREAMSIDE OPEN
SPACE LAND USE CATEGORY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing, has recommended that the Council amend the Land Use
Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter, and has reviewed the contents of the
Environmental Impact Report (uEIR") prepared for the project and all
other relevant infonnation, including staff reports, and all
testimony/ written and oral, presented on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1_. The City Council finds that the public
interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the
surrounding region require amendment to the Land Use Element of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2 hereof, to
more accurately describe the definition of the ''Streamside Open
Space" land use category.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby ~~ends the Land Use
Element of the Palo .Alto Comprehensive Plan by amending the
definition of the land use category "Streamside Open Space" to read
as follows:
Streamside Open Space: the corridor of riparian
vegetation along a natural stream. The corridor
will generally vary in width up to 200, feet;
provided, that in the San Francis~~ito Creek
corridor, between El Camino Real and the Sand Hill
Road bridge over the creek, the open space
corridor varies in width between approximately 310
feet and 80 feet. The aerial delineation of the
open space in this segment of the corridor, as
opposed to other segments of the corridor, is
shown to approximate scale on the land use map.
Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be developed
in the streamside open space.
SECTION 3. The City Council adopts this resolution in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA~)
findings adopted by Resolution No. 7685.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective upon the
thirty-first day after its adoption, but shall be suspended and
inoperative unless and until the Ordinance Adopting the Development
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees
1
970703 lac 0031 '~
• •
of the Leland Stanford Junior University has been approved by the
City Council and, if submitted to a referendum by the City Council
on ita own motion or by a certified sufficient pe;tition of the
electorate, pursuant to the Article VI, section 3 of the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto~ until approved by the voters. This delayed
effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a
sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and
its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity
for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of
california. A referendum petition filed after the effective date
shall be rejected as untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Cle.~..k
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
9107031aeOOllS19
2
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
• •
RESOLUTION NO~ ~
RBSOLt.rriON OF THE COUNCIL OF TilE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPRBHENSrVB PLAN FOR LANDS OF STANFORD
UNIVERSITY LOCATED GENERALLY AT 1000 SAND HILL
ROAD (STANFORD WEST APARTME'NT PROJECT)
Wi~, the Planning Cammdssion, after duly noticed public
hearing, ~4B recommended that the Co~~cil amend the Land Use Map of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter, and has reviewed the contents of the
Environmental Impact Report {·ErR·) prepared for the project and all
other relevant information, including staff reports, and all
testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows~
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public
interest, health/ safety and welfare of Palo Alto and tbe
surrounding region require ru-uendrnent to the Land Use Map of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2 hereof.
Such amendment of the Land Use Map will permit the redevelopment
of a vacant site, a small portion of which requires the amendment
set forth in Section 2, fer multiple fa..1"(lily residential uses,
specifically rental apartments, including below market rate units.
SECTION ~-The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan with respect to property
located at 1000 Sand Hill Road by clearly establishing the boundary
of the Streamside Open Space designated area to be 200 feet from
the centerline of San Francisauito Creek (which is also the
boundary between the Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park) at all
locations on the site, except for a small area in the western
portion of the site, in which area the boundary of the Streamside
Open Space designated area is reduced to a width of approxi~ately
160 feet from the centerline of San Francisquito Creek, all, as
shown on Change Area A of •Map 1," which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council adopts this resolution in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (NCEQAn}
findings adopted by Resolution No. 7685.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective upon the
thirty-first day after its adoption, but shall be suspended and
inoperative unless and until the Ordinance Adopting the Development
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees
of the Leland Stanford Junior University has been approved by the
City Council and, if submitted to a referendum by the City Council
on its own motion or by a certified sufficient petition of the
electorate, pursuant to the Article VI, section 3 of the Charter of
l.
970703 lac 0031 S73
• • •
the City of Palo Alto, until approved by the voters. This delayed
effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a
sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and
its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity
for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of
california. A referendum petition filed after the effective date
shall be rejected as untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FO~~:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
P7070l ~ OOJU73
2
APPROV"ED:
City r.'~nager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
I
; Ch:1n ~:e from S~rc:~r:1sidc · l Open~ Splc~ to h!ultiple i l
The Ci!y of
Palo Alto
Mt.:!tipk f;;:r.li!y
Res~d~ntiJ.l
Major lns!itl.!lio~.t
Special Fadlity
~-+--~!.:~-=-~ 1:-.;:,r--.:tioo/
S;~::.1: Fa.:ihty
::U11i versi t . , J '.
Map 1
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use An1endments
This r;,J ';' is
0~ tt:
City of Pa ~o /-.!to GIS
------· c· ::: · t~·
\ • •
RESOLUTION NO. ~
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LANDS OF STANFORD
UNIVERSITY LOCATED AT 600 and 700 SAND HILL ROAD
(STANFORD WEST SENIOR PROJECT)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing, has recommended that the Council amend the Land Use Map of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter, and has reviewed the contents of the
Environmental Impact Report (~EIR") prepared for the project and all
other relevant information, including staff reports, and all
testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public
interests health 1 safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the
surrounding region require amendn1ents to the Land Use Map of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Sections 2 and 3
hereof. Such amendments of the Land Use Map will permit the
redevelopment of a vacant hospital site for multiple family
residential uses, specifically a senior housing complex, including
senior condominiums and a health care facility with assisted living
and skilled nursing units.
SEC'riON 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan with respect to property
located at 600 Sand Hill Road by: (1) changing the land use
designation on the site from Major Institution/Special Facility to
Multiple Family Residential as shown on Change Area B of "Map 1,"
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference;
and (2) clearly establishing the boundary of the Streamside Open
Space designated area to be 200 feet from the centerline of San
Francisquito Creek, except for that portion of the site where.the
boundary of the Streamside Open Space designated area is reduced to
a distance ranging between approximately 80 feet and 160 feet from
the centerline of the San Francisquito Creek, as shown on Change
Area C of ~Map 1 . "
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan with respect to property
located at 700 Sand Hill Road by: (1) changing the land use
designation for a small portion of the site from Multiple Family
Residential to Major Institution/Special Facility as shown on
Change Area D of "Map 1"; and (2) changing the land use designation
for a small portion of the site from Streamside Open Space to Major
Institution/Special Facility, as shown on Change Area E of "Map 1."
1
910103 lac 0031 sso
• .. • •
• SBCTION t. The City Council adopts this resolution in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act -("CEQA")
findings adopted by Resolution No. 7685.
SBCTIQN 5~ This resolution shall be effective upon the
thirty-first day after its adoption, but shall be suspended and
inoperative unless and until the Ordinance Adopting the Development
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees
of the Leland Stanford Junior University has been approved by the
City Council and, if submdtted to a referendum by the City Council
on its own motion or by a certified sufficient petition of the
electorate, pursuant to the Article VI, section 3 of the Charter of
the City of Palo ~to, until approved by the voters. This delayed
effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a
sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and
its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity
for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of
California. A referendum petition filed after the effective date
shall be rejected as untimely.
INTRODUCED &~~ P.~SED:
AYES:
NOES
ABSE~"T:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
2
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
.1
I (
I
j b < C I )'
Palo
Major lnstitutio::t/
Special Facility
1v1ap 1
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Amendments
......,-+---M.1j .. ~r l:H!i;-Jtion/
S;.:.:ill F~:ility
1\!(0::J: 'Cc:--:n:·.~::.:ty
Cc :"':'.r.,: ~-= i.1!
This r.1:tp is
City of P<1!o Allo GIS
... -~· ~ !~ ... :.. c: " ..
..
;:.
!~ -r. .... o
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 1iiQ
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP AND THE STREET NETWORK
MAP OF THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PIAN RELATING
TO ROADWAY AND CIRCULATION CHANGES AND CHANGES IN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STRBA'!SIDE OPEN SPACE AREA
IN THE VICINITY OF THE STANFORD SHOPPING CgNTBR
\'. <EREAS, the Planning Conmission~ after duly noticed public
hearing, has recommended that the Council amend the Land Use Map
and the Street Network Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter, and has reviewed the contents of the
Environmental Impact Report ('"EIR"') prepared for the project and all
other relevant information, including staff repor~s, and all
testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto ddes
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public
interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the
surrounding region require amendments to the Land Use ~~p and the
Street Network Map of the Palo Alto Comprehen.eive Plan as set forth
in Sections 2, 3 and 4 hereof.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
and the Street Network Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as
shown on "Map 4," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, and as more particularly described as follows:
a. The extension of Sand Hill Road from Arboretum to El
Camino Real is hereby added to and designated as an Arterial street
on said maps ..
b. Vineyard Lane, Stock Farm Road and Palo Road are
hereby added to and designated as Collector streets on said maps.
c. Pasteur Drive between Sand Hill Road and Welch Road,
designated on said maps as a Collector street, is hereby shown on
said maps in its realigned, relocated configuration.
d. Quarry Road between El Camino Real and Arboretum
Road, designated on said maps as an Arterial street, is hereby
shown on said maps in its changed configuration.
1
970703 lac 0031 S76
• •
SECTION 3. The Ci.ty Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan with respect to vacant property
located between Sand Hill Road and San Francisquito Creek in the
vicinity of the Stanford Shopping Center, the configuration of
which property will be altered by the extension of Sand Hill Road
from Arboretum to El Camino Real, by clearly establishing the
boundary of the Streamside Open Space for said parcel, which ranges
from approximately 180 feet to 310 feet from the centerline of San
Francisquito Creek, as shown on "Map 3" and more particularly
described on "Exhibit "'A,. to "Map 3," which map and exhibit are
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by: (1) changing the land use
designation of the 2.50 acre parcel to be created by the
realignment of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road from Ht-!ajor
Institution/University Lands/Campus Education Facilities" to
"Multiple Family Residential," as shown on Change Area "Fn of "Map
1", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; and (2) changing the land use designation of a portion
of land that will become part of the reconfigured Pasteur Driv~,
from "l'-1'.a.jor Institution/University Lands/Campus Education
Facilities" to "Major Institution/Special Facilities," as shown on
Change Area "G" of "Map 1" .
.SECTION 5 ~ The City Council adopts this resolution in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (~CEQA•)
findings adopted by Resolution No. 7685.
SECTION 6. This resolution shall be effective upon the
thirty-first day after its adoption, but shall be suspended and
inoperative unless and until the Ordinance Adopting the Development
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees
of the Leland Stanford Junior University has been approved by the
City Council and, if submitted to a referendum by the City Council
on its own motion or by a certified sufficient petition of the
electorate, pursuant to the Article VI, section 3 of the Charter· of
the City of Palo Alto, until approved by the voters. This delayed
effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a
sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and
its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
970703lac 0031S76
2
• •
for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of
· california. A referendum petition filed after the effective date
shall be rejected as untimely~
nrrRODUCBD AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
AITEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
970703 lac 0031 S76
APPROVED:
Mayor
----City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
3
I /
The Cil) l!lt
Palo Alto
•
~1ap
Con1prehe:1si ve Plan
Land Use Amendinents
-E-~-~fljor l:utin.Hion!
Sp~..:ia! Fa.dhty
This m:~p is a product
of the
Ciiy or PJIO A!to GIS
---·---..
,. -..... :...·
T h c C i c 7 eo t
Palo
-·------------------------------------. • •
Re;,ised area of
Strean1side Open Space·
Regional/ Co:nm;.1nity
Cornrnercial
l\1ap 3
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Amendments
r: ;: ,, -
Ci1y of Palo Alto GIS
---·---G' 2~~· tOO'
"":t 0 ~
ro N T1
Q
M -CS) ... ~
~ .-.4 ~
/ ~OUACf: Orton Ko"1·'!'l
, ~ Foulk. City ol P~o Jl.!!o, ~ (IP A'-$l)Ciatos, June f99G. ,f
!:WF' SCJJkl Itt so ont
j
[ l __ ,
I
. ~~
l--..r ______ ..J
-~
Edgo of E:J~istino P:tv,tf S!Jtt:lcn
Mitigittcd r:uturo nond Afionmvnt
Edgo of Mitio"tod Ro:~d night-of-W.1y
~ ContorJino tlf Son FranclsQullo Cra,tfoc {City Oor)ndary)
Sttoamsido Opon Spnca Oosionatlon r:J /' '
,--= .
Mitigated
Sand Hill Road
Alignment
m1
~I :J
0
lll
CD Ol
MGnJ , ......
01
-,( .-• r--... ......
>
0:
I ' 1•1
II,• *·'. t c·-
t
I
•
•
•
• -zr===r
Collector
Arterial
•
Expressway
Freeway
• ·I . """"' . :/
Interchange
Palo Alto
City Boundary
ISK~~i]~i!~ii;-co~~~~~~~~~~~~~:iill!llf"mo~Ea .. =o~~~~~;: .. ~~ .... ~"!:Tbis map is
8 prod~ct o~ tbe 11ap 4 City of Palo Alto GIS
Comprehensive Plan Land
i I: c C I l )' o C Use & Street 1'\'ctwork
Palo Alto l\1ap Amendments -c·-
.
t
... c.. < J: • • >
-· _ ... -· t.o.O
• •
RESOLUTION NO. ~
RESOLtrriON OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAI,Q ALTO
AMENDING VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE SAND HILL ROAD CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, the Planning Commdssion, after duly noticed public
hearing~ has recommended that the Council amend various elements of
the Palo Alto Con~rehensive Plan; and
WHERE~q, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter, and has reviewed the contents of the
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the project and all
other relevant information, including staff reports, and all
testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter;
NOW 1 THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public
interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the
surrounding region requ~re amendments to various elements of t'he
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Sections 2 through 6
hereof.
SECTIQN 2. The City Council hereby amends the
Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by
amending Policy 51 to read as follows:
Policy 5: Avoid major increases in street capacities
except as necessary to remedy severe traffic congestion in the Sand
Hill Road corridor. In other portions of the City, undertake only
critically needed intersection improvements connected with severe
traffic congestion or neighborhood intrusion problems ·or both.
Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of·.· motor vehicles
with those of pedestrians and bicyclists.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the
Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. by
amending Program 19 to read as follows:
Program 19: Reduce traffic congestion on Sand Hill Road
while prohibiting a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo
Alto Avenue/Alma Street across El Camino Real.
Sand Hill Road has severe traffic congestion problems.
Major improvements need to be made, in a comprehensive manner,
including widening the road and extending it to El Camino Real; as
well as upgrading and coordinating traffic signals, bike lanes,
sidewalks and crosswalks as minimum safety actions. In addition,
in order to ease the severe congestion in the Sand Hill Road
corridor, other roadways must be improved to create new and better
use of existing routes of travel. These include widening and
upgrading Quarry Road to allow two way traffic from El Camino Real
1
970703 lac 0031577
• •
to Arboretum; upgrading Arboretum; creating Vineyard Lane;
extending Palo Road to connect with Quarry Road; and extending
Stock Farm Road to connect with Sand Hill Road. However, any
connection of Sand Hill aoad to Palo Alto Avenue and Alma Street
would encourage traffic increases on Alma Street and nearby
residential streets, especially north of Downtown and, therefore,
should not be approved.
SECTION 4~ The City Council hereby amends the Land Use
Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by amending the
discussion under •Transportation" of the "Objectives, Policies and
Programs• to read as follows:
Traneportation
The Plan Map reflects the policy of avoiding major increases
in automobile traffic capacities in most cases.
The Plan Map includes an extension of Sand Hill Road from
Arboretum Road to El Camino Real. In solving the severe traffic
congestio~ problew~ in the Sand Hill corridor it was concluded that
improvements in addition to extending Sand Hill Road were needed.
These improvements include widening Sand Hill Road; widening and
upgrading Quarry Road to allow two way traffic from El Camino Real
to Arboretum Road; upgrading Arboretum Road; creating Vineyard
Lane; extending Palo Road to connect with Quarry Road; and
ex~ending Stock Farm Road to connect with Sand Hill Road.
f.i.ajor tra.'"lsportation policies are to improve mass transit and
increase transit ridership. Existing and proposed bus routes are
mapped in the Transportation section. Transit planning is
primarily the responsibility of Santa Clara County and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends the Urban Design
Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by amending Program 26
of Policy 8, to read as follows:
Scenic Highways
Policy 9: Provide safe, attractive scenic routes which will serve
the motoring public, the bicyclist, the pedestrian, and in some
areas the equestrian.
Program 26· Add Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero
Road, Page Mill/Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, and Arastradero
Road from Foothill Expressway to Interstate 280 to the list of
protected scenic routes in Palo Alto.
Four attractive urban streets--Sand Hill Road, University Avenue,
Embarcadero Road~ and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway--are
proposed scenic routes.
2
970703 1ac ooJt sn
• •
Sand Hill Road provides a linkage between El Camino Real, a
state historic route# and Interstate 280, a California Scenic
Highway. The. intersection of Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real is
located adjacent to the north gateway into Palo Alto at the San
Fransquito Creek Bridge. It is here that the relationship of the
scenic corridor to the creek is most obvious, as an approximately
1,500 foot long segment of wooded and riparian vegetation remains
open to public views on the northwest side of the scenic route.
The Sand Hill Road scenic corridor is designed to modern arterial
standards, with development along major segments of its extent.
Adjacent land uses include the Stanford Shopping Center, housing,
medical, professional, research and development, and administrative
office uses, among others. The scenic route is characterized by
its broad setbacks and rural, oak-dominated landscaping. Informal
groupings of oak trees~ California ~atives, and eucalyptus set in
natural grasses and wildflowers are the common landscape elements.
Significant portions of the roadway are visually enhanced with
planted medians, containing trees and shrubs that either extend the
rural landscape t.herne, or provlae a more formal landscape
character, as in that portion of the route that adjoins the
Stanford Shopping Center. As it approaches the scenic Juniperro
Serra Boulevard and Interstate 280! the undeveloped foothills are
a significant scenic element of the background landscape. ·
University Avenue east of Middlefield is a curving street,
lined with gracious magnolia trees. Many visitors remark on the
striking entrance to Palo Alto that this tree-lined street affords.
It passes the historic Squire House, whose facade has been
preserved by a special easement. West of Middlefield, a beautified
University Avenue traverses the City's Downtown and leads directly
into Palm Drive, the fo~dl main entrance to Stanford University.
Embarcadero Road, from Harbor Road to El Camino Real, is the
main access to the Palo Alto Baylands. Embarcadero west of
Bayshore Freeway is lined with trees and some houses of-historic
interest. The Bay lands portion contains the site of historic
Wilsonls Landing on the fonner San Francisquito Creek and expansive
views of open space~
Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway, from Bayshore Freeway, to
Interstate 280, has wide setbacks in Stanford Industrial Park west
of El Camino Real. Design criteria imposed upon its tenants by
Stanford University have set a h.igh standard for this route. The
width and landscaping make the Oregon Expressway portion visually
pleasing. The route leads to the Palo Alto Baylands and the
foothills.
SECTION 6.. The City Council adopts this resolution in
accordan'=!e with the California Environmental Quality Act (.,CEQA")
findings adopted by Resolution No. 7685.
SECTION 7. This resolution shall be effective upon the
thirty-first day after its adoption; but shall be suspended and
inoperative unless and until the Ordinance Adopting the Development
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees
3
970703 lac: 0031 S71
' . ~ .. • •
of the Leland Stanford Junior University has been approved by the
City Council andr if submitted to a referendum by the City Council
on its own motion or by a certified sufficient petition of the
electorate, pursuant to the Article VI, section 3 of the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto, until approved by the voters. This delayed
effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a
sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and
its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity
for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of
the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of
california. A referendum petition filed after the effective date
shall be rejected as untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED A.C3 TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
970703lac 003U77
4
APPROVED;
:Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
• •
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
a. Ordinance No. 4430, Amending Section 20.08.020 (The Setback
Map} of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change the Setback Line
Along a Portion of Sand Hill Road
b. Ordinance No. 4426, Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
~to MUnicipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification
of Property Known as 600 Sand Hill Road and a Portion of 1000 Sand
Hill Road from PF to PC and from RM-30 to PC, Respectively
(Stanford West Senior Housing)
c. Ordinance No. 4427 I Amending Section 18 ~ 08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zone
Classification of Property Located at 600, 700 and 1000 Sand Hill
Road from RM-3 0 to PF and from PF to R!t1·· 3 0
d. Ordinance No. 4428, Amending Section 18.43. 050 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (Community Commercial District Site Development
Regulations), Relating to the Allowable Floor Area of the Stanford
Shopping Center
e. Ordinance No. 4429, Amending Section 18.08. 040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zone
Classification of Property Located at 180 El Camino Real from CC to
CC(L} (Stanford Shopping Center)
f. Ordinance No. 4431, Conditionally Amending Section 18.08.040
of the Palo Alto MUnicipal Code (The Zoning Map) by Prezoning as
RM-40 a Portion of a New Parcel to be Created by the Realignment of
Pasteur Drive and by Prezoning as PF(L) an Area of Land That Will
Become Part of Pasteur Drive
g. Ordinance No. 4432, Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zone
Classification of a Portion of a New Parcel to be Created by the
Realignment of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road from PF{L) to RM-40