Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 7940follows: RESOLUTION NO. 7940 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE LATP SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. 97032039) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The Los Altos Treatment Plant ("LATP") site is at the end of North San Antonio Road, northeast of Highway 101. The site, slightly more than 13 acres in area, was used by the City of Los Altos as a waste water treatment plant until 1972. In 1984 the City of Palo Alto ("City") purchased a half interest in the property from the City of Los Altos. The two cities entered into a lease for the property under which the City of Palo Alto managed the property. In 1991, the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department began studying future uses of the property. B. In August of 1996 the City circulated a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR") on development of the LATP site. The proposed project ("the Original Project") included a refuse collection contractor facility, a permanent household hazardous waste facility, and a construction storage/staging yard for the City of Palo Alto Utility Department field operations and contractors. The Draft EIR, dated August 1997, was circulated for public review in November and December of 1997. The public comment period was extended into January of 1998 to allow for additional public comment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on January 14, 1998. C. The Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR when revised to respond to comments raised at its hearings. The responses to comments made at the hearing and previous to it are contained in that part of the Final EIR titled "Responses to Comments-Final Environmental Impact Report, LATP Site Development Project" dated September 1999. D. After consideration of the Planning Commission comments and recommendations, the Department of Public Works revised its proposed project. The "Revised Project" is based on the "Reduced Project Alternative" (Draft EIR Section 5.5). This alternative eliminates the utility storage yard from the original project. This permits preservation or restoration of 3.4 acres of wetlands, while new development is limited to 3.8 acres. 1 000222 cl 0090423 E. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents: "Draft Environmental Impact Report-LATP Site Development Project" dated August 1997, "Responses to Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report LATP Site Development Project" dated September 1999," and "LATP Site Developments Project Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan dated August 25, 1999", and planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. F. The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution, is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, which program is designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures imposed to lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, and described in detail in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. SECTION 3. All Significant Impacts Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that all significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation is required for construction noise, construction impacts on air quality, soils, and biological resources (wetlands). Compliance with the proposed mitigation measures in the Final EIR would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. SECTION 4. No Basis for Recirculation. The Council finds that (a) no new impacts result from modifying the Original Project and replacing it with the Revised Project, and (b) there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2 000222 cl 0090423 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding is based upon all the information presented in the Final EIR and record of proceedings to date. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: March 6, 2000 AYES: BEECHAM, BURCH, EAKINS, FAZZINO, KLEINBERG, KNISS, LYTLE, MOSSAR, OJAKIAN NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: de-~~ irector · g and Community Environment 3 000222 cl 0090423 TABLE 1-1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact 3.1 Land Use 3.1.1: Elimination of Current Land Use Designation. The project would require conversion of 7.2 acres of land from a "Public Park" designation to "Major Institution/Special Facilities". 3.1.2: Consistency with LAFCO Issues. The project would be consistent with annexation/reorganization requirements of LAFCO. 3.2 Geology, Soils, and . Seismicity 3.2.1 : Settlement. Existing fill materials are not compacted which could result in differential settlement of facility foundations due to compression or densification. 3.2.2: Seismic Shaking. Major earthquakes could cause damage to the proposed facilities. 3.3.3: Liquefaction. Fill materials in two former sedimentation basins in Area B could liquefy during a moderate earthquake event. 3.2.4: Fault Rupture: No active faults are located beneath the site and the likelihood of surface rupture or fault creep is remote. S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation LS LS s LS s LS Mitigation None required. None required. · Non-engineered fill material beneath building and facility foundations will be replaced with appropriate engineered fill material to the native ground surface. All fill will be placed 4 to 6 weeks prior to construction of structures to avoid differential settlement. None required. All structures will be engineered, designed, and constructed in accordance with current local, state, and Uniform Building Code seismic code requirements and engineering standards. Existing fill within the sedimentation basins will be removed and replaced with engineered fill. None required. w Mitigation Responsibility City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and construction contractor City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and construction contractor. CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation LS LS 1-4 m >< I OJ ...; )> TABLE 1·1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact 3.3 Water Quality 3.3.1: Groundwater Quantity. Stormwater runoff would be directed into the storm drainage system, thereby reducing the amount of recharge to the groundwater. 3.3.2: Drainage Patterns and Runoff. The increase in impervious area (5.3 acres) would decrease infiltration rates and increase the rate and quantity of surface runoff. 3.3.3: Exposure to Flood Hazards. The increase in impervious area and the proposed increase in elevation of the site could increase flooding in areas near the site. 3.3.4: Surface Water Quality. Construction activities and materials associated with the project could increase the runoff of sediment and contaminants into drainage systems and impact water quality. 3.3.5: Groundwater Quality. Infiltration of stormwater runoff that has contacted pollutants from industrial activities on the site could impact groundwater quality. 3.3.6: Surface Water Quantity: Filling of wetlands would impact the amount of surface water in water bodies on the site. S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation Mitigation LS None required. LS LS LS LS s None required. Drainage systems would be installed as part of the project. None required. None required. Water quality protection features are part of the project design. None required. Water qua)ity protection features are part of the project design. See wetlands mitigation under Section 3.6, Biological Resources. Mitigation Responsibility CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with. Mitigation 1-5 TABLE 1·1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Rndings Impact 3.4 Air Quality 3.3.1: Temporary Air Emissions During Construction. Temporary emissions of d1,1st, fuel combustion equipment exhaust, and vehicle exhaust could impact the public near the project area. 3.4.2: Potential Generation of Asbestos- Bearing .Materials During Demoliti.on. If existing buildings contain asbestos, demoiition could release asbestos emissions. S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation s s Mitigation The following measures recommended by BAAQMD will be implemented: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water 3 times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The following measures, extracted from BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 would be implemented: Consult with BAAQMD's Enforcement Division prior to commencing demolition. Provide an onsite representative who is familiar with the provisions cif BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 to be present during .all stripping and removal of Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). Mitigation Responsibility Construction contractor. City of Palo Alto ~ Public Works and demolition contractor CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation LS LS 1·6 TABLE·1-1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact· 3.4.3: Air Emissions from Project Operations. Emissions could result from vehicle trips, diesel and propane fuel storage and dispensing, paint spray booth operations, parts cleaning, and household hazardous waste handling. 3.4.4: Odors. Project operation could result in odors from vehicle exhaust, truck washing, S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation LS LS Mitigation Provide a written plan or NOI to demolish a stationary structure, as directed by the air pollution control officer. Remove RACM prior to other demolition or other operations. Adequately wet and keep wet all exposed RACM during cutting, stripping, demolition, removal, and handling both inside and outside the building or; use a local High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) exhaust, ventilation, and collection system designed and operated to capture RACM emissions. · Remove elements that contain RACM in units, sections, leak-tight chutes, or containers. Isolate the building, room, facility, or installation by physical barrier from the outside air, to the extent feasible, as determined by the air pollution control officer. After wetting, and while still wet, seal all RACM in a leak- tight container prior to removal of the isolated area and deposit at an approved disposal site. All containers must be properly labeled. Other methods include:. processing RACM into nonfriable forms (when dry, cannot be crumbled. pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure}, or converting RACM into asbestos-free material. None required None required. Mitigation Responsibility CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation 1-7 TABLE 1-1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact and the HHWF. 3.5 Traffic and Traffic Safety 3.5.1: Short-Term Future (1998) Plus Project Conditions. The project would increase traffic volumes by 4.3 percent at the U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp, increase volumes by less than 1 percent of capacity on U.S. 101, increase peak-hour traffic volumes by 1 0 vehicles, require queuing of vehicles for the HHWF, and change circulation . patterns at the site ... 3.5.2: Comprehensive Plan Update Year 2010 Plus Project Conditions. The project would increase traffic volumes by 4.3 percent at the U.S. 101 northbound on~ramp, increase volumes by less than 1 percent of capacity on U.S. 101, increase peak-hour traffic volumes by 10 vehicles, require queuing of vehicles for the HHWF, and change circulation patterns at the site. 3.5.3: Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety. Development of three new driveways on the west sid~ of North San Antonio Road could result in traffic conflicts with pedestrians and/or bicyclists and vehicles entering and exiting the facilities. 3.6 Biological Resources Long-term Impacts To Vegetation 3.6.1: Loss of. non-native grassland vegetation. Approximately 3. 7 acres of non- S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation LS LS LS LS Mitigation None required. · None required. None required. Safety features such as a sidewalk and stop ~igns at driveways are part of the project design. None required. Mitigation Responsibility CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation 1-8 TABLE 1-1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact native grassland (including non-native trees) would be lost in Areas 8 and C. Approximately 1.4 acres of non-native grassland may be lost in Area A during wetland mitigation activities. 3.6.2: Invasion of Non-Native Plant Species'into Non-Native Grassland Habitat. During construction, invasion of exotic species (e.g., seeds transported via truck tires) into non-native grassland habitat adjacent to the project area could occur. 3.6.3: Loss of Seasonal Wetland Vegetation. Approximately 0.2 acr~s of seasonal wetland vegetation would be lost. 3.6.4: Loss of Brackish Water Wetland Vegetation. A small area that supports brackish water wetland vegetation in Area A could be lost during wetland creation activities. Short-Term Impacts To Vegetation 3.6.5: Disturbance to Non-Native Grassland Vegetation. Small strips of non- native grassland habitat located onsite and adjacent to the project area could be temporarily disturbed during project construction. Small areas of non-native grassland adjacent to the location of wetland mitigation activities could be temporarily disturbed. S = Significant Impact LS =Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation LS s s LS Mitigation None required. Conceptual and final wetlands mitigation plans will be . developed and implemented in coordination with re~ource agencies. Conceptual and final wetlands mitigation plans will be developed and implemented in coordination with resource agencies. The mitigation plan will include mitigation for the loss of brackish water wetland vegetation, as well as criteria to gauge and document the recovery of the brackish water wetland vegetation. None required. Mitigation Responsibility City of Palo Alto Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Public Works Department CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation. LS LS 1-9 TABLE 1-1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact 3.6.6: Disturbance to Seasonal Wetland Vegetation. Short-Term impacts that would negatively affect the growth and/or survival of remaining seasonal wetland vegetation could occur during construction. 3.6.7 Disturbance to Brackish Water Wetland Vegetation. Temporary impacts to brackish water wetland vegetation could occur during construction activities and during wetland mitigation activities. Long-term Impacts To Wildlife 3.6.8: Interference With Wildlife Movements. Wildlife movements during dispersal and wildlife movements within a home range or territory would be altered. 3.6.9: Loss of Nesting Habitat for Terrestrial Avian Species. Loss of landscaping vegetation {i.e., trees and shrubs) along the western boundary of the site, which is used for nesting by terrestrial avian species. 3.6.1 0: Noise and Lighting. Project-related noise and increased lighting may discourage the use of the remaining ponds by waterfowl and shorebirds. 3.6.11: Loss of Habitat for Wetland Species. The loss of Ponds 81, 82, 83, 86 and Ditches 1-3 would reduce the availability of wetland and open water habitat for numerous avian species; the number of S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\SF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation Mitigation S Pond 84 and Pond 85 will be fenced off and denoted on project plans as environmentally sensitive areas. s LS LS s s The slough area in Area A will be denoted on project plans as environmentally sensitive areas. The mitigation plans will include criteria to gauge and document the recovery of brackish water wetland vegetation from temporary disturbance. None required. None required. Lights installed on the project site will be shielded and directed away from the remaining ponds, A fence would be erected to shield the wetland birds from the vehicle and human activity on the project site. Mitigation plans for creation of replacement wetlands will be developed and implemented in coordination with resource agencies. Mitigation could include creating a combination of wetland types in the proposed location in Mitigation Responsibility City of Palo Alto Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Public Works Department CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation LS LS ,· LS LS 1-10 TABLE 1·1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact. wetland species that use the site would be reduced. 3.6.12: Contamination of Adjacent Wildlife Habitats. If contamination from surface water runoff were to occur to habitats adjacent to the project area, the health or reproduction of wildlife (or plant~} could be adversely affected. Short· Term Impacts To Wildlife 3.6 .• 13: Disturbance to Wildlife. Temporary impacts to wildlife during project construction or wetlands creation could include increased · noise and human activity associated with earthwork. Long-term Impacts To Wetland Resources 3.6.14: Loss of 1.4 Acres of Waters of the U.S. (Including Wetlands). Approximately 1.2 acres of open water habitat and 0.2 acres of seasonal wetlaRd habitat would be lost. Ponds 81, 82, 83, 86 and Ditches 1 and 2 would be physically lost due to the importation of fill; Ditch 3 would be functionally lost. 3.6.15: Disturbance to Wetland Resources. During wetlands creation in Area A, a small amount of brackish water wetland vegetation niay be lost and the hydrologic regime of the slough may be altered. S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation LS LS s s Mitigation Area A (see Figure 3.6-1 }. / None required. With incorporation of project features (described in Section 3.3,Water Quality}, to protect water quality, contamination would be prevented. None required. As part of the permitting process, conceptual and final mitigation plans will be developed and implemented in consultation with resource.agencies. Conceptual and final wetlands mitigation plans will be developed and implemented in coordination with resource agencies. The wetlands mitigation plans will include mitigation for the loss of brackish water wetland vegetation and altered hydrological regime of the slough, as well as criteria to gauge and document the recovery .of the brackish water slough and associated wetlands. As Mitigation Responsibility City of Palo Alto Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Public Works Department CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY . Significance with Mitigation LS LS 1·11 TABLE 1·1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact Short· Term Impacts To Wetland Resources 3.6.16: Disturbance to Wetland Resources. The remaining ponds and the slough could be disturbed by activities such as inadvertent trampling and earthwork associated with construction. Long-term Impacts To Special Status Species 3.6.17: Impacts to Special Status Plants. No Special Status Plants were found on the site. 3.6.18: Loss of Habitat for Special Status Wildlife Species. A small reduction in foraging habitat for special status birds would occur. Short-Term Impacts To Special Status Species 3.6.19: Disturbance to Special Status Wildlife Species. Temporary disturbance to special status wildlife species observed in Area A (American peregrine falcon and saltmarsh common yellowthroat) could include increased noise and other human S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\SF0\971070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation s LS LS s Mitigation part of project plans, permanent security fencing would be erected and native shrubs would be planted to prevent long-term disturbance to remaining wetland areas onsite due to operation of proposed facilities. The remaining pond areas and slough onsite would be fenced off and denoted on project plans as environmentally sensitive areas. The northern border of the project boundary would be inspected periodically by the contractor. Workers would be informed that the ponds in Area B and the slough in Area A are valuable resources and that they should be avoided. None required. None required. Any wetlands mitigation in Area A would be conducted outside of the breeding season of the saltmarsh common yellowthroat. Mitigation Responsibility Construction contractor City of Palo Alto PUblic Works Department CHAPT9J 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation LS LS 1-12 TABLE 1·1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact· activities associated with construction of the· proposed project and during the potential creation of wetlands in Area A. Wetlands mitigation activities could disturb breeding activities of the saltmarsh common yellowthroat. 3.7 Hazards 3.7 .1: Public and Worker Exposure to Hazardous Waste at the HHWF. Public and worker exposure to hazardous waste could occur in the event of illicit entry into the HHWF, emergency situations such as an explosion in the flammables bay; accidents during transport of packaged wastes from the facility, and accidents resulting from a major earthquake. 3.7.2: Worker e)Cposure from Fueling Station, Storage Tanks, and Paint Spray Booth. 3.7.3: Acc.idental Releases from the HHWF to the Environment. Accidental release of contaminants to surface water and groundwater could result from unauthorized drop-off of waste during non-business hours and from emergency situations. 3.8 Noise 3.8.1: Increase rn Ambient Noise Levels at Adjacent Commercial Office Buildings and Open Space Areas. Noise from refuse collection vehicle start up and_ vehicle S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU =Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\sF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation LS LS LS s· Mitigation None required. Implementation of safety features and regulatory requirements as part of the project would ensure protection of human health and the environment. None required. Implementation of safety features and regulatory requirements as part of the project would ensure protection of human health and the environment. None required. Implementation of safety features and regulatory requirements as part of the project would ensure protection of human health and the environment. If workers in the adjacent office buildings are impacted by increased noise levels, the City would implement one of the following measures depending on the severity of the impact: 1) Install soundproofing and noise reducing Mitigation Responsibility City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation LS 1-13 TABLE 1-1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact maintenance activities could increase the highest instantaneous noise level inside adjacent office buildings to 60 dBA. Noise would exceed 50 dBA at the property line, an increase of over 8 dBA above the local . ambient noise level, which is considered a violation of the City's Noise Ordinance. 3.8.2: Increased Noise Levels at Adjacent Office Buildings During Construction. Construction activities such as grading and site paving could result in maximum noise levels of up to 90 dBA outside of the closest office buildings and 60 dBA inside the buildings. 3.8.3: Increase in Noise Levels on San Antonio Road Between the Site and the 101 Freeway. Refuse collection and recycling trucks would create an increase in noise levels during typical office hours by more than 1 or 2 dBA, an undetectable difference. 3.9 Aesthetics 3.9.1: Aesthetic Change of Physical Site. The importation of fill to raise the refuse . collection contractor portion of the site to 8 feet above MSL would cause the new structures to be more visible than the existing buildings. 3.9.2: Increased Light or Glare. New light sources would be created on the site with S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\SF0\971 070002.DOC Significance without Mitigation Mitigation windows in the office building, 2) Construct a shed over the parking spaces adjacent to the buildings to deflect noise, 3) Negotiate agreements regarding the timing of any particularly loud maintenance activity. S All equipment used on the site will be adequately muffled and maintained. The construction contractor will designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would notify workers in the adjacent office building on the west side of the site about any particularly noisy activities, allowing them to adjust their schedules accordingly. LS LS LS None required. .None required. Design features implemented as part of the project would ensure visual compatibility with the surrounding environment. None required. Mitigation Responsibility PASCO. Construction contractor CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation LS 1-14 TABLE 1-1 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Findings Impact lighting at the refuse collection contractor facility from 2:30 A.M. until dawn. · 3.10 Recreation 3.1 0.1: Loss of Public Park Land Use Designation. A land use designation change would result in the loss of 7.2 acres of land designated as "Public Park" in the Comprehensive Plan. 3.10.2: Impacts to Recreation. Users of adjacent parks could be impacted by traffic, noise, and dust generated during construction, and by traffic and noise during project operations. See these sections of the EIR for a discussion of impaCts. S = Significant Impact LS = Less than Significant Impact SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact SFO\SF0\971 070002.DOC Significance· without Mitigation LS LS None required. None required. Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY Significance with Mitigation 1-15