HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 7950RESOLUTION NO. 7950
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO.ALTO
CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE SOUTH OF FOREST
AREA COORDINATED AREA PLAN FINAL EIR AND MAKING
FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1.
Palo Alto ("City
follows:
Background. The City Council of the City of
Council") finds, determines, and declares as
A. In 1991, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation ("PAMF") and
the City of Palo Alto entered into a Development Agreement as part
of a package of land use entitlements to permit PAMF to expand its
existing medical facilities located south of Forest Avenue in
downtown Palo Alto (the "Downtown Site") . In 1996, the Development
Agreement was amended to cover the relocation of all PAMF
facilities from the Downtown Site to· a new location on El Camino
Real, (the "Urban Lane Site.") Under the terms of the Amendment,
upon occupancy of the Urban Lane Site, PAMF gave up its right to
occupy the Downtown Site. The City and PAMF further agreed to
cooperate in a planning process for the Downtown Site and nearby
areas, including the mixed-use South of Forest Area. This area
extends from the PAMF site to Alma Street. The planning process
chosen by the City was a Coordinated Area Plan.
B. In 1997, the City adopted Chapter 19.10.020 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code establishing procedures for the adoption of
coordinated area plans. A coordinated area plan is a plan that
provides more specific guidance than the Comprehensive Plan for the
development of a sub-area and is a means to achieve citizen
participation in the planning for the area. The Comprehensive Plan
Land Use and Community Design Element calls for the preparation of
a Coordinated Area Plan for SOFA and the PAMF site. (Program L-22.)
C. In September 22, 1997, the City Council initiated the
CAP process by adopting a Policy Framework for the PAMF/SOFA CAP
and appointing a Working Group to assist the City in preparing a
Draft CAP. In December 11, 1998 an initial Draft CAP was released
covering the twenty-one . block PAMF/SOFA plan area. The City
Council concluded that the CAP should be divided into two phases.
Phase 1 is the northwestern portion of the plan area and includes
all PAMF holdings. A revised PAMF /SOFA CAP for Phase I only,
entitled "Working Group SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Draft Plan" was
issued on June 9, 1999.
D. The City as the lead agency for the Project prepared an
Environmental Impact Report on the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan.
The initial Notice of Preparation was issued on April 28, 1998.
1
000302 syn 0090523
The project area included a twenty-one block area bounded by Forest
Avenue, Alma Street, Addison Avenue, and Kipling Street. A Draft
EIR was circulated for a public review period ending March 26,
1999. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft
EIR on March 10, 1999.
E. The Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the
following documents and records: "South of Forest Area (SOFA)
Coordinated Area Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report" dated
February 1999; "South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report dated November 1999;" and
"South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report -First Amendment dated March 2000;" and the 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 offices of the Director ~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 mitigation monitoring program pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. This program is designed to
ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures
imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR, and described in detail in Exhibit A
which is attached to this resolution and a part of it.
G. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings.
SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that
the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The City Council has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff
reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the
proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and
relevant before considering for approval the various actions
related to the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1.
SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated To
A Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that the
Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental effects
of the Project with regard to Traffic and Circulation, Noise,
Geology, Hydrology, Health Hazards, Solid Waste Disposal;
Vegetation and Wildlife, and Cultural Resources. The City Council
finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this
Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid o~ substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
2
000302 syn 0090523
Final EIR as summarized below. Each of the Mitigation Measures
summarized below is more fully described in the EIR and in the
attached Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program.
A. Traffic and Circulation. Potentially significant
impacts are identified from trucks loading and unloading on Homer
Avenue and from the mid-block cross walk on Homer Avenue at Whole
Foods. However, these impacts only occur if two-way traffic is
reinstated on Homer Avenue. Phase I of the CAP does not implement
two-way traffic. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
B. Noise. A potentially significant noise impact is
identified for mixed use development adjacent to Alma Street. Phase
I of the CAP does not redistrict property adjacent to Alma Street.
Therefore, no mitigation is required.
C. Geology. A potentially significant impact is that
existing and proposed structures in the CAP area may be damaged by
shrinking and swelling of soils. This impact will be reduced to
less than significant levels by Mitigation Measure Number 4
included in the SOFA CAP, Chapter VII and the Summary Table A in
the Final EIR. This measure instructs the building official to
require, as the building official deems appropriate, soils studies,
and the implementation of the recommendations of such studies in
order to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
D. Hydrology. A potentially significant impact is
that pollutant runoff from construction and operation of new
projects could be cumulatively significant. This impact will be
reduced to less than significant levels by Mitigation Measure
Number 5 included in the SOFA CAP, Chapter VII and the Summary
Table A in the Final EIR requiring incorporation of Best Management
Practices described in Policy N-27 and 29 of the Comprehensive
Plan, and Chapter 16.28, Excavations, Grading and Fills of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code.
E. Health Hazards. A potentially significant impact is
exposure of a future population to contaminated soil and
groundwater in the area designated for mixed use development in the
June 1999 Draft CAP. This impact will be reduced to less than
significant levels by Mitigation Measure Number 6 included in the
SOFA CAP, Chapter VII and the Summary Table A of the Final EIR. A
second potential impact is from release of asbestos during
demolition of existing buildings. This impact will be reduced to
less than significant levels by Mitigation Measure Number 7
requiring compliance with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department
standards and procedures for asbestos containing material.
F. Schools. The EIR notes that implementation of the
CAP will increase the demand on existing schools. State law
declares that school impact fees collected by the Palo Alto Unified
School District on all new construction are full and complete
3
000302 syn 0090523
mitigation of any impact on schools.
require any additional mitigation.
Therefore, the City cannot
G. Solid Waste Disposal. A potentially significant
impact is an increase in solid waste from the demolition of
existing buildings and the construction of new offices. The CAP has
been amended to include Mitigation Measures Numbers 8 and 9
included in the SOFA CAP Chapter VII and Summary Table A of the
Final EIR, requiring construction recycling plans and operation
recycling programs as part of the project approval process. This
will reduce any impacts to a level of insignificance.
H. Vegetation and Wildlife. A potentially significant
impact is the impact on heritage and landmark trees and publicly
owned trees in the right of way. The SOFA CAP has been amended to
include a requirement for specifications to preserve trees and
landscaping either protected, or considered for protection, by the
SOFA CAP. The specifications shall require that all improvements
and development plans use the Tree Pre1;;ervation and Management
regulations in the PAMC Chapter 8.10. The CAP has been amended to
include Mitigation Measure Number 10 included in the SOFA CAP,
Chapter VII and Summary Table A of the Final EIR. These mitigation
measures would reduce the potential impacts to vegetation and trees
to a level of insignificance.
I. Cultural Resources. A potentially significant
impact has been identified that future development, grading, and
construction on prehistoric and historic resources. The SOFA CAP
has been amended to include Mitigation Measure Number 12 included
in the SOFA CAP, Chapter VII and Summary Table A of the Final EIR
which would reduce potential impacts to prehistoric resources to a
level of insignificance. Furthermore, the SOFA CAP has been amended
to include Mitigation Measure Number 11 included in the SOFA CAP,
Chapter VII and Summary Table A of the Final EIR, which addresses
potential impacts from development on historic resources.
Furthermore, Revisions to the EIR have been prepared to the
Final EIR, which identifies potential impacts to specific historic
resources located in the SOFA CAP Phase I area. These revisions
contain specific mitigation measures that require that the
potential impacts, through relocation and rehabilitation, of all
identified historic resources will be mitigated to an acceptable
level by requiring that all development activities shall be .in
substantial compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation. The mitigation measures included in Mitigation
Numbers 11 and 12, as well as the Revisions to the Final EIR will
reduce the potential i_mpacts on cultural resources to a less than
significant level.
SECTION 4. No Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully
Mitigated. The Final EIR identified a significant environmental
effect on open space if 1.3 acres of parkland cannot be secured.
The CAP identifies two acres as parkland. However, acquisition of
4
000302 syn 0090523
the parkland is contingent upon approval of a Development Agreement
between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
(PAMF). The Development Agreement provides for, through dedication
and purchase, the acquisition of two acres of parkland.
Furthermore, the SOFA CAP provides for the retention of the
existing Scott Park, containing approximately 0.40 acres of
parkland.
The City Council finds with regard to the potential
significant effect of failure to acquire 1.3 acres of parkland,
these effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance with the
acquisition of parkland on the PAMF properties.
SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR
describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which
could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project. The
City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the
alternatives and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project as
summarized below:
A. Alternative #1 -No Project Alternative.
This alternative assumes no rezoning of the site, with any
future development on the site consistent with existing zoning.
This alternative is not desirable for the City because it would not
achieve the goals and policies of the SOFA CAP for more housing and
parkland.
B. Alternative #2 -Palo Alto Medical Foundation Alternative
Land Use Plan.
Under this alternative, the PAMF-owned parcels would have
different land use configurations than the proposed SOFA CAP, the
remaining properties (non-PAMF) within the planning area would
retain land use designations as identified in the Comprehensive
Plan. This alternative is not desirable for the City because it
would not achieve the goals and policies of the SOFA CAP for more
housing and parkland.
c. Alternative # 3 Alternative Circulation System
Layout.
This alternative is not included as part of SOFA CAP Phase
I, and the City has determined that discussion of · alternative
circulation elements would best be addressed in Phase II of the
Area Plan. Deferring this discussion would not effect the ability
of the City to adopt this alternative.
D. Alternative #4 -Alternative Land Use Configuration and
Transition.
This alternative recommends a different land use
configuration than the Area Plan. This alternative is not desirable
5
000302 syn 0090523
because it does not achieve the goals and policies of the SOFA CAP
for increased housing and diversity of housing types.
SECTION 6. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City
finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains
any substantial evidence identifying significant environmental
effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmental
impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses
on the initial Environmental Assessment (contained in Section 7.1
of the Draft EIR). It was identified, though the Initial Study,
that the proposed project would not have any impacts on endangered
or threatened habitat or species.
SECTION 7. No Recirculation Required. The City Council
finds that no new significant information has been received that
requires recirculation of the Final EIR.
SECTION 8. Substantial evidence supporting each and every
finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR, including
amendments, revisions and records of proceedings.
SECTION 9. The Council finds that 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 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.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: March 27, 2000
AYES: BEECHAM, BURCH, EAKINS, FAZZINO, KLEINBERG, KNISS, LYTLE, MOSSAR
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT PARTICIPATING: OJAKIAN
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
000302 syn 0090523
6
South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan -Final Environmental Impact Report
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Number 1.
In addition to the specific mitigation measures enumerated below, the private development of
properties shall be in compliance with applicable land use requirements that would normally be
applied to said private development. These shall include, but not be limited to:
• Title 8, Trees and Vegetation, ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC);
• Title 12, Public Works and Utilities, of the PAMC;
• Title 15, Fire Prevention, ofthe PAMC;
• Title·16, Building Regulations, ofthe PAMC;
• Title 17, Hazardous Materials Storage and Handling, of the PAMC;
• Title 18, Zoning of the PAMC;
• Title 21, Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC), and;
• The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as amended, to include the SOFA CAP.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
1. City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
1. Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site-specific project. Applicable
department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure
mitigation is included in the project
2. During construction, applicable department is responsible for on-site inspection to ensure
implementation of site specific mitigation measures.
Mitigation Number 2.
The developer shall, if determined necessary by the building official, contract with a qualified
soils or geotechnical engineer to perform a detailed geotechnical study for any development
proposed within the planning area. All mitigation measures identified in the geotechnical report
shall be implemented in order to reduce geologic-related impacts to a less than significant level.
The geotechnical report shall be subject to review and approval by the Palo Alto Building Division
prior to grading activities.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
1. City of Palo Alto Building Official
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
2. Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site-specific project. Applicable
department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure
mitigation is included in the project prior to grading activities
1
Mitigation Number 3.
The developer shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP), as defmed within Policy N-
21 of the Comprehensive Plan, into project plans. Preparation of a stormwater pollution
prevention plan identifying the specific BMP to be followed during the project is the responsibility
of all future project developers. Incorporation ofBMP shall be completed prior to grading permit
approvals, subject to approval by the City Public Works Engineering Division.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
1. City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
1. Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site-specific project. Applicable
department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure
mitigation is included in the project.
2. Monitor during construction activities.
Mitigation Number 4.
For all redevelopment projects on sites suspected by the City of containing groundwater or soil
contamination within the planning area, the City shall require that the developer shall hire a qualified
environmental testing company to collect and test random soil samples for analysis of soil and
groundwater contamination. The environmental consultant, hired by the project proponent, shall
comply with all regulations governing sampling methodologies, shipping and handling procedures,
and testing methodologies. The analysis shall comply with the planned schedule and analytical
procedures for providing the information specified in the State of California Environmental
Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control's Preliminary Endangerment
Assessment (PEA). Validated data shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Department of
Health, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the State of California Environmental Protection
Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control for review. In the event that contamination is
discovered, affected soils shall be removed in compliance with all federal and state regulations
governing clean-up procedures and disposal of hazardous materials. Clean up shall be certified as
complete by the Santa Clara County Department of Health and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
1. City of Palo Alto
2. Santa Clara Department of Health
3. Santa Clara Valley Water District
4. Regional Water Quality control Board
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site-specific project. Applicable department
is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure mitigation is
included in the project prior to construction. ·
2. Developer is required to provide monitoring reports to the applicable agencies during construction .
2
Mitigation Number 5.
All development shall be required to comply with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department standards
and procedures for asbestos containing material.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
1. City of Palo Alto Fire Department
2. Regional Air Quality Management District
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
l.Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site-specific project. Applicable
department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure
mitigation is included in the project prior to grading activities
2. Monitoring during demolition activities.
Mitigation Number 6.
The developer shall prepare construction-recycling plans as part of the project approval process.
The construction-recycling plan shall be implemented through explicit provisions in
demolition and construction contracts.
The construction recycling plans shall include the following specific steps:
a) Recovery of concrete, asphalt, and other inert solids;
b) Recovery of scrap metals;
c) Salvage of building fixtures and other re-usable items; and
d) Siting containers at the construction site for cardboard, beverage containers,
wood, and other recyclable materials.
e) The construction-recycling plan shall be implemented through explicit provisions
in demolition and construction contracts.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
1. City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
l.Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site-specific project. Applicable
department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure
mitigation is included in the project prior to grading activities
2. Monitoring during demolition activities.
3
; '
Mitigation Number . 7
The developer shall prepare construction-recycling plans as part of the project approval
process. The construction-recycling plan shall be implemented through explicit provisions in
demolition and construction contracts.
The construction recycling plans shall include the following specific steps:
a) Recovery of concrete, asphalt, and other inert solids;
b) Recovery of scrap metals;
c) Salvage of building fixtures and other re-usable items; and
d) Siting containers at the construction site for cardboard, beverage containers,
wood, and other recyclable materials.
e) The construction-recycling plan shall be implemented through explicit provisions
in demolition and construction contracts.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
1. City of Palo Alto
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
l.Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site~specific project. Applicable
department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure
mitigation is included in the project prior to grading activities
2. Monitoring during demolition activities.
Mitigation Number 8.
The developer shall insure and provide specifications to preserve trees and landscaping protected
by the Area Plan. The specifications shall require that all improvement and development plans
use the Tree Preservation and Management regulations (PAMC 8.1 0) standards and
specifications for:
• Tree reports;
• protection of trees during construction
• replacement and planting of trees
• maintenance of trees after construction
The Area Plan shall include provisions for reforestation and revegetation of right-of-way
planting a;eas. Species and specifications shall be consistent with Guidelines for Tree
Management & Removal Program. All final construction plans for projects in the planning
area shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Palo Alto Arborist prior to
approval.
Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring:
I. City ofPalo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment
2. City Arborist
Time frame for mitigation monitoring:
l.Design Development and preconstruction activities for any site-specific project. Applicable
department is responsible for review oftechnical analysis prepared by the developer to ensure
mitigation is included in the project prior to grading activities
2. Monitoring during demolition and construction activities.
4