Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO7569RESOLUTION NO. 7569 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION NEW CAMPUS PROJECT 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. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation for Health Care, Research, and Education ("Applicant") has made application to the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation New Campus Project (also referred -to as the "Urban Lane Project" or the "Project"). The Project consists of a proposed new medical clinic and medical research facility located on 9.2 acres formerly developed for commercil lase at 975 El Camino Real. The proposed new campus will consist of three, three-story buildings totaling approximately 355,500 square feet, with underground and surface parking. The development approvals required for the Project include comprehensive plan amendments, a zoning ordinance text amendment, site rezoning, a conditional use permit, a tentative. subdivision map to assemble 13, parcels, vacation of portions of Humer Avenue and Urban Lane, architectural review including a design enhancement exception, and a development agreement amendment restricting reuse of the Foundation's current campus upon occupancy of the Urban .Lane site (the "Project Approvals"). The City Council's approval modified the currently allowable square footage to a maximum of 295,600, which negated the need for a variance for a deferred parking structure. B. 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 and materials: "Palo Alto Medical Foundation Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 20, 1995" ("Draft EIR"); "Palo Alto Medical Foundation Final Environmental Impact Report, January, 1996" ("Final EIR"), 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 sea. ("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. 1 96021416e 0080181 C. The initial Notice of Preparation for the Project was prepared on November 4, 1994, and a scoping meeting was held on November 17, 1994. The Draft EIR for the Project was circulated for public review from October 20, 1995 through December 4, 1995. The Architectural Review Board held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on November 16, 1995. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on November 29, 1995 and December 6, 1995. D. The City Council on January 22, 1996, held a duly noticed public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and considering the information contained in the. Final EIR, and considering the subject Project Approvals. E. 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 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 hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. F. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings, including, but not limited to, testimony received by the Council during the January 22, 1996 public hearing and responses by staff during that public hearing. 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, 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 Palo Alto Medical Foundation New Campus Project. 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 in regard to Land Use; Traffic and Circulation; Public Services and Utilities pertaining to wastewater, solid waste and recycling; Toxic and Hazardous Materials; Drainage and Water Quality; Geology and Seismic Hazards; Air Quality; 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 or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below: 2 960214 lac 0080181 A. Land Use The only potentially significant land use impact (Impact A.1) of the proposed Project derives from the Project not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning for the Project site in existence at the time of submittal of Project applications. Those applications include Comprehensive Plan amendments to the Land Use designation for the site and to the Housing Element Program pertaining to the existing PAMF Downtown facilities, and a rezoning to a modified Public Facilities (PP) district, said text modification having been initiated by the City Council on October 10, 1995, There will be no land use impacts from the Project concerning the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance or any other aspect of the Project after City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and text and map changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant's objectives as stated in Section III. B. of the Draft EIR cannot be achieved without approvals of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Zoning Ordinance text and map changes. B. Traffic and Circulation There are three Traffic and Circulation impacts that are. significant, and mitigation proposed as part of the Project or identified in the EIR and required as Project. conditions of approval mitigate those impacts to less than significant levels. Impact B.4 concerns the potential for vehicles weaving from the extended Palm Drive -University Avenue on -ramp to southbound El Camino Real, resulting in unacceptable operations for the segment of El Camino Real between. the ramp and the Embarcadero Road intersection. This potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by inclusion of separate phases for southbound on -ramp traffic and southbound mainline traffic at the proposed traffic signal at the PAMF main entrance. The Applicant. and City have made this request to Caltrans staff, who agree the mitigation will be implemented. Impact B.6 results from the Project site not being directly served by public transit due to the lack of an acceptable bus stop location on the west side of El Camino Real and to the site's distance from existing transit stops to the north and south. This impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of the following mitigation measures into the project conditions of approval: 1) Applicant shall fund an extension of Urban Lane north to University Circle in order to connect the Project campus to the CalTrain station for vehicles, shuttle buses, bicycles and pedestrians, and the Project as designed shall not be occupied until such extension has been constructed; 2) the Project shall provide pedestrian pathways between the Project buildings and the proposed internal shuttle stops and any bus stop locations on El Camino Real; and 3) the Applicant, as a condition of Project approval, shall operate a shuttle service between the Palo Alto CalTrain Station and the Project site during normal business hours, 3 960214 lac 0080181 should Stanford University elect not to serve the site with the Marguerite shuttle. Impact B.9 concerns the cumulative traffic generated by future development, including the proposed Project, that would adversely affect local intersections, resulting in changes in intersection levels of service, increased delay at intersections operating at LOS E or worse, and entering intersection volumes in excess of the City's approved 2,010 volumes. Impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval: 1) to improve intersection operations at the El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road-Galvez Road, a second southbound left -turn lane on El Camino Real shall be constructed by the Applicant when required by Caitrans or when post -Project monitoring establishes that the improvement is warranted; and 2) the Applicant shall pay a proportionate share of the cost of improving the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection (EIR Mitigation Measure B.9.b). C. Public Services and Utilities There are four potentially significant impacts associated with the Project's effects on public services and utilities. Impact D.1 concerns the additional wastewater flows generated by the Project, which could potentially exceed the capacity of local sewer lines. This impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation into conditions of Project approval the requirement that the Applicant comply with Utility Department requirements regarding flow metering and contribute the Project's proportionate share of any required wastewater collectionssystem improvements prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Impact D.4 concerns that the proposed Project's solid waste generation, which would contribute incrementally to the cumulative impacts of solid waste on the environment. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the conditions of project approval shall include a requirement that the Applicant comply with the requirements of the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division regarding new source reduction, recycling and composting. Impact D.5 concerns the significant solid waste impact from demolition of the existing structure at the Project site and from construction of the proposed Project. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the Applicant shall, as a condition of Project approval, have construction contractors maximize diversion of materials during construction of the Project. Impact D.6 finds that the Project as currently proposed does not show storage areas for recyclables and compostables. This potential solid waste impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by a Project condition requiring the Applicant, prior to issuance of building permits, to provide sufficient 4 960214 lac 0080181 • storage areas throughout the Project -for recyclables and compostables. D. Toxic and Hazardous Materials Construction of the Project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to contaminated soil or groundwater (Impact E.1). This potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of the following requirements as conditions of Project approval: the Applicant shall monitor ongoing remediation activities on the Project site; conduct a risk assessment to determine additional remediation. requirements, if required by the monitoring; conduct further site studies to characterize on -site contamination, if required by the monitoring and risk assessment; prepare site remediation plans for residual site -contamination, if required by the monitoring, risk assessment and site studies; and prepare a site safety plan to protect construction workers from contamination, if required by the monitoring, risk assessment, site studies and site remediation plan. E. Drainage and Water Oualitv Soil excavation could release into site runoff the pollutants currently bound up in soils, contributing to degradation of surface water quality; construction of new buildings, roadways and landscaped areas could also contribute to urban runoff pollutants. (Impact F.I). These impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant )evel by incorporation into the conditions upon issuance of grading permits the requirements that the Applicant shall incorporate Best Construction Management Practices into a stormwater pollution prevention plan to be implemented throughout Project construction, and shall comply with all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). F. Geology and Seismic Hazards There are six potentially significant impacts concerning geology and seismic hazards. The Project could result in Project occupants being exposed to safety hazards related to hazardous materials on -site in the event of an earthquake (Impact G.2). This impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring the Applicant, as a condition of Project approval, to comply with the seismic safety program detailed in EIR Mitigation Measure G.2. Liquification and differential settlement hazards could present a potential danger to people and damage to structures, roadways, parking areas, and buried infrastructure resulting from existing soils conditions or earthquake -induced ground failure at the Project site (Impacts G.3 and G.5). EIR Mitigation Measures G.3 and G.5, which are incorporated as Project conditions of approval, will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level 5 960214 lac 0080181 • • by requiring that an engineer qualified in earthquake engineering include in the final Project design all economically feasible engineering methods to reduce the potential for damage from the possible types of earthquake -induced ground failure at the site and comply with the current version of the Building Code in effect at the time of final Project design. Impact G.6 concerns the - construction of buildings, roadways, parking areas and structures, and other improvements disrupting and displacing site soils, thereby increasing the potential for water and wind erosion of graded soil and imported fill. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the Project conditions of approval require that the Applicant employ Best Construction Methods and other measures detailed in EIR Mitigation Measure G.6 in conjunction with any excavation or grading permit for the Project. Impact G.7 concerns potential excavation -related hazards to workers and adjacent structures and facilities, and the construction vibration that could damage adjacent properties. EIR Mitigation Measures G.7 a and b detail measures, including a pre - construction survey and use of appropriate shoring of excavation sites, with Chief Building Official review and approval, which are included as City Project conditions of approval and which will reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. Impact G.0 concerns the -excavation and disposal of up to 106,000 cubic yards of earth for the Project building foundations and underground parking. This impact will be mitigated to a less. than significant level by incorporation into the Project conditions of approval the requirement that the Applicant, prior to and during excavation, comply with EIR Mitigation Measure G.8, relating to identification of disposal locations and testing and proper disposal of contaminated soils. G. Air Ouality Project construction activities would generate temporary dust and combustion emissions (Impact H.1). This impact will be reduced to less than a significant level by imposition of City conditions of Project approval which shall require that the Project construction contractors implement a dust abatement program throughout the Project construction period. H. Cultural Resources Impact K.1 concerns the potential for Project excavation to damage previously unknown prehistoric or historic archaeological resources at the Project site. This impact will be reduced to less than a significant level by City imposition of Project conditions requiring the Applicant to comply with the detailed requirements of EIR Mitigation Measures K.l.a, b, and c. Those measures require construction monitoring by a qualified archeologist and specify Applicant, City and archaeologist responsibilities prior to building construction in the event subsurface prehistoric or 6 9460214 lac 0080181 historic resources are encountered at the Project site during excavation. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts W!-_ch Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to Air Quality and Noise. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect identified in this Section 4, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which lessen to the extent feasible the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, these effects cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. Accordingly, the impacts summarized below remain unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project: A. Air Quality The proposed Project will result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions and will contribute to a cumulative increase in emissions in the region, a significant cumulative impact in that any net increase contributes to the region's existing ozone problem. (Impacts H.2 and H.6.) Although the City is requiring transportation measures (EIR Mitigations B.6.a through B.6.c) to reduce those impacts, they will remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of the required mitigations. B. Noise Project construction will temporarily generate increased noise at the Project site and in its vicinity during the approximate two years of Project construction. (Impact J.1.) As conditions of Project approval, the City will require the Applicant to comply with EIR Mitigation Measures J.1 a, b and c. These measures require that construction hours are limited, noise standards are set for construction equipment, equipment noise generators will be shielded and barriers will be erected along the southern and northwest property boundaries by the Applicant and site construction contractors. While these measures will reduce the temporary construction noise impacts, those impacts will remain significant and unavoidable for the two-year duration of Project construction. SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to its location, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project as summarized below: A. No Project Alternative The EIR evaluated two variations of the No Project Alternative, one involving no development and one concerning 7 960214 lac 0080181 development of the Project site consistent with existing Comprehensive. Plan designation and zoning of the Project site. 1. No Development Alternative This alternative would entail no implementation by the Applicant of the currently proposed Urban Lane Campus Project nor of the previously approved Downtown Campus Specific Plan. This alternative would not meet the Project's basic objective of relocating most of the Medical Foundation's existing facilities to a new facility at a single location with an integrated design. This alternative is also not desirable for the City because: a) it would result in the existing PAMF facilities, most of which do not meet current. seismic safety standards for new construction, continuing to be located in what is otherwise mostly a residential neighborhood; b) it would result in the Urban Lane Project site remaining in an unsightly and unproductive condition for an unknown period of time with most previously existing building having been demolished and uses having been terminated or relocated; and c) it would deprive the citizens of Palo Alto and surrounding communities who are present or future PAMF members from utilizing a new medical facility with an integrated design intended to provide a high level of health care in a managed care environment. 2. Existing Plans Alternative This alternative would involve buildout of the adopted PAMF Specific Plan for its existing Downtown properties and eventual redevelopment of the Urban Lane Campus site consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan designation for Service Commercial use. This alternative does not meet the Project's objectives as well as construction of the Urban Lane Campus with its integrated design for all relocated facilities, and does not avoid all of the practical difficulties facing the Applicant if required to maintain operations while reconstructing its existing facilities over what would be a longer construction period than at the Urban Lane site. This alternative is also not desirable for the City for several reasons: a) it also would result in the existing PAMF facilities, most of which do not meet current seismic safety standards for new construction, continuing to be located in what is otherwise mostly a residential neighborhood; b) it 8 960214 lac 0080181 • • also should result in the Urban Lane Project site remaining in an unsightly and unproductive condition for an unknown period of time with most previously existing buildings having been demolished and uses having been terminated or relocated; c) it would result in greater cumulative traffic impact (about four times the daily average trip generation and five times the peak hour trip generation) from redevelopment of the Urban Lane Campus site with approximately 160,000 square feet of retail and office uses than would occur with redevelopment of the existing PAMF Downtown properties with likely residential uses; and d) site impacts such as construction noise and dust generation would occur over a longer period of time in an existing mostly residential neighborhood unlike the two-year construction period in the existing nonresidential area around the Urban Lane Campus site. B. No -Urban -Lane Alternative This alternative would consist of the Project as proposed, with two major exceptions: the proposed Urban Lane Extension between University Circle and the PAMF Campus would not occur, and the PAMF El Camino Real entrance would not be signalized, necessitating a new signal at El Camino Real/Encina Avenue. This alternative would not meet the Project's objective "to have direct vehicle access to the new facility through a fully signalized intersection to and from El Camino Real." (Draft EIR page 1II-2.) This alternative would also likely require substantial redesign of the Urban Lane Campus Project, significantly adding cost and time to the overall implementation of relocating the PAMF facilities to the Urban Lane Campus. This alternative is also not desirable for the City because it does not accomplish as part of the PAMF Project the extension of Urban Lane north to University Circle, a significant vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvement for the Project site and vicinity. The Urban Lane Extension would provide an important alternate access route to the Urban Lane Campus for pedestrians and vehicle traffic, including emergency vehicles and shuttle buses. Transit accessibility to and from the site is impaired without the pedestrian and shuttle bus link provided by the Urban Lane Extension. Also, this alternative would impair operations at the El Camino Real/Palm Drive -University Avenue intersections compared to the proposed Project with its signalized entrance north of Encina Avenue. The EIR found that this alternative would have significant unavoidable impacts: weaving from the Palm Drive/University Avenue ramp to Encina Avenue, and noise on Encina Avenue. 9 960214 lac 0080181 C. Reduced Density Alternative This alternative does not include construction of the proposed Wellness Center as part of the PAMF Urban Lane Campus. While the stated Project objectives (Draft EIR page III -1) can be met by this alternative, it does not provide PAMF an opportunity to add a unique research and clinic -related physical therapy -type facility. For the same reason, this alternative is less desirable for the City, as fewer services would be available to PAMF members than would be the case if the Wellness Center were constructed. In the event PAMF does not seek or receive future architectural design approval for the proposed Building D which would house the Wellness Center, the Urban Lane Campus would still be well -designed and functional, as PAMF has proposed and the City approvals include a landscaping alternative for the Building D area. D. Former Maximart Site This alternative involves the 15 -acre former Maximart site, currently used for a Fry's Electronics store and numerous other uses including Coop Cable TV. This site does not meet several of the Project's stated objectives, being located approximately 2 miles from Downtown and 2.75 miles from the Stanford University Medical Center. The site is '.n a mixed use neighborhood that includes residential zoning and uses next to and in close proximity to the site. The proposed Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for most of this site, Multiple - Family Residential. Existing buildings would need to be demolished to accommodate the Project. The Applicant does not control the Project site and has rejected the site as not meeting the basic Project objectives. Recently the City Council authorized the extension of nonconforming use of the site to allow the continued use and an expansion of the existing Fry's Electronics store, which will likely mean that the site will continue for some years to be unavailable for this Project. For the above reasons, this alternative has been rejected by the City and the Applicant. E. Hewlett-Packard Site This 10 -acre site is located in close proximity to the former Maximart site, and also does not meet several of the stated Project objectives. The site is at a greater distance from Downtown and the Stanford University Medical Center than the Urban Lane Campus site. Surrounding and vicinity uses and zoning include residential properties in addition to nonresidential use. Ongoing toxic remediation of the site could pose constraints to redevelopment of the site in the short-term. The proposed Project is not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Light Industrial. The Applicant does not control the site and has rejected the site as not meeting the Project's basic objectives. For the above reasons, this alternative has been rejected by the City and the Applicant. 10 960214 lac 0080181 F. Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated Applicant representatives indicated to City staff that other sites in Palo Alto were considered by the Applicant on a very preliminary basis, early in its search for a new campus location. Those alternative sites were not evaluated in the EIR because they could not feasibly attain the Project's basic objectives due to size, inability of the Applicant to obtain site control, economic considerations, and other factors relevant to the unique needs of this major medical facility. In addition, two potential alternative sites were preliminarily considered and then rejected in 1991, during the environmental review of the Applicant's proposed expanded Downtown Site: Certain property owned by Stanford University at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, and the Elks Club Site at 4249 El Camino Real. This Council's Resolution No. 7015 found that neither location was a feasible alternative for this Project. SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after giving greater weight to its duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings as flowing from the Project: A. The primary public benefit of the proposed Project is the relocation of most of the existing Medical Foundation facilities and activities from a mostly residential neighborhood served by local residential streets in the Downtown area to a mostly commercial area immediately adjacent to Downtown on El Camino Real, which is a six -lane State Highway at the project location. Project -related traffic will be mostly removed from the residential area bounded by Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road and Hamilton Avenue. The relocation will eliminate the historical incompatibilities between the medical clinic/research activities of the Medical Foundation and the surrounding residential neighborhood. The evidence in support of this finding includes the information at pages III -11 through -18, IV -B-41 through -53, and VI -2 through -5, of the EIR, and the January 22, 1996, letter of David Jury. B. Relocation of the existing Medical Foundation facilities from the surrounding mostly residential neighborhood will also avoid short-term, but multi -year impacts to the neighborhood that would otherwise result from the Applicant implementing its previously approved Specific Plan for its existing facilities. The construction period at the existing location would be substantially longer than the two years expected at the proposed Urban Lane Campus because of the many practical difficulties of rebuilding facilities and maintaining functions at the same time replacement facilities are being constructed in the same general location. The residential neighborhood surrounding the existing 11 960214 he 0080181 • • facilities would be significantly more sensitive to noise, dust, traffic and related construction impacts than the primarily commercial and industrial uses around the proposed- Urban Lane Campus. The evidence in support of this finding includes the information at pages 111-24 and VI -4 of the EIR, and the January 22, 1996 letter of David Jury. C. Retaining and modernizing the medic -J. services and research activities of the Medical Foundation within Palo Alto will benefit the residents and employees of Palo Alto and surrounding communities, a substantial proportion of which are Medical Foundation members. In addition, locating medical research facilities near the related medical facilities at Stanford University provides important functional synergies among the institutions and individuals involved. The evidence in support of this finding includes the letter of Dr. Robert Jamplis dated January 19, 1996; the letter of Dr. David Druker dated January 22, 1996; the letter of David Jury dated January 22, 1996, and the testimony of Dr. Robert Jamplis and Dr. David Druker at the January 22, 1996, City Council hearing. D. Short-term construction expenditures for the project will exceed Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000), with a substantial portion of that total cost expected to be spent in the greater Palo Alto, Santa Clara -San Mateo Counties area. Long-term, the Medical Foundation facilities will remain in Palo Alto in close proximity established commercial uses at Town and Country Village and wntown for shopping and related activities by the Applicant's employees, patients and visitors. Unlike larger medical complexes, the Medical Foundation does not provide a full -range of food and other convenience services on site, thereby generating sales at vicinity retail and other service uses. The evidence in support of this finding includes the information contained in pages 21-33 of Appendix H (Fiscal and Economic Benefit Analysis) of the EIR; the letter of David Jury dated January 22, 1996; and the testimony of William Nack and Steve Wright at the January 22, 1996, hearing of the -City Council. E. The Amendment to the existing Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant for its existing Downtown Specific Plan area provides that the Applicant and the City will fund a comprehensive planning effort for the properties to be vacated upon relocation of most facilities to the new Urban Lane Campus. Relocation of the existing facilities coupled with such a planning process will allow the conversion of the existing Medical Foundation properties to uses, most likely residential, developed and designed to be in greater harmony with the surrounding neighborhood than the existing facilities that evolved over an approximately 70 -year period. The evidence in support of this finding includes the information contained in CMR 115:96, pp. 1-3, and the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to MR 115:96), SECTION 7. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. The City Council finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor 12 960214 lac 0080181 • • contains any substantial evidence identifying, significant environ- mental effects of the Project with respect to any of the environ- mental impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses on the Initial Study for the Project (Draft EIR, Appendix "A") and with respect to the following potential impacts identified as not significant in Table II.1 of the Final EIR, with the reasons for the findings of no significant impacts also detailed in Table II.1: Land Use Impacts A.2 and 3; Traffic, Circulation and Parking Impacts B.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8; Visual Quality Impacts C.1, 2, 3, and 4; Public Services and Utilities Impacts D.2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; Drainage and Water Quality Impact F.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Geology and Seismic Hazards G.1, 4 and 8; Air Quality Impacts H.3, 4 and 5; Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts I.1, 2 and 3; Noise and Vibration Impacts J.2 and 3; and Biotics Impact L.1. SECTION 8. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR. 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, including but not limited to the information presented to the Planning Commission on December 12, 1995, entitled "Master Response on El Camino/Embarcadero Intersection (Revised) INTRODUCED AND PASSED: January 29, 1996 AYES: ANDERSEN, FAZZINO, HUBER, KNISS, ROSENBA114, SCHNEIDER, SIMITIAN, WHEELER NOES: ABS ENT : MCCOWN 'iBSTENTIONS: - ATTEST: ' APPROVED : C y C erk AP ED AS T Se e�►�: ' st . City Attorney or Manag Director of Planning and Community Environment 13 960214 lac 0080181 • PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT 1V.H Air Quality 111111H.2: The project we aid result in a net increase in alter 1 pollutant emissions. 11.6: The project would contribute to a cumulative increase in emissions in the region. This would he a significant, cumulative impact in that any net increase contributes to the region's existing ozone pmblem. IV.J Noise and Vibration J.1: Project construction would temporarily generate increased noise at the project site and in its vicinity. MITIGATION MEASURE 11.2: Refer to Mitigation Measures B.6.a through B.6.c in Section IV.B, Traffic, Circulation and Parking. 11.6: Refer to Mitigation Measure 11.2. J.1.a: As required by Ordinance, project construction would be allowed only between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Saturday; and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sunday and holidays. Individual pieces of equipment would not be allowed to exceed 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or at the property line. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY 11.2.1: See actions for Mitigation Measures B.6.a through B.6.c. 11.6.1: See actions for Mitigation Measures B.6.a through B.6.c. J.1.a.1: Prepare contract specifications for construction contractor that include compliance with the noise control requirements. and submit the specifications to the Planning Division for approval.. J.1.a.2: In the event of a complaint about construction equipment operating hours or noise levels, the Building Inspection Division shall conduct a field investigation to determine if City Ordinance has been violated and, if so, shall take the remediation action specified by Ordinance. MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE PAMF, Planning Division Prior to requesting construction bids. Building Inspection Division As needed during project construction. KEY: PAMF I. Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 1 EXHIBIT A January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE J.l.b: The construction contract shall specify that construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines must br. equipped with best available mufflers and that impact tools must he effectively shielded or shrouded. In addition, the use of electric -powered rather than diesel - powered construction equipment would he required, as feasible. J.l.c: The construction contract shall specify that temporary harriers (eight feel tall, flush to the ground) ate to he constructed along the southern boundary of the site and at the northwest corner of the properly to block construction noise emanating toward the residence and offices south of the site and the pet hospital northwest of the site, respectively. MONITORING REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY J.t.b.t: Prepare contract specifications for construction contractors that include construction equipment requirements, and submit the specifications to the Planning Division for approval. J.l,b.2: Conduct inspections to verify compliance with requirements for construction equipment. If non-compliance is noted, notify project sponsor and contractor of required actions. J,1.c.1: Prepare contract specifications for construction contractor that include building temporary harriers to block construction noise, and include the specifications in the Planning Division for approval.. J.l.c.2: Conduct inspections to verify compliance with requirements for temporary noise bat:iers. If non-compliance is noted, notify project sponsor and contractor of required actions. MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE PAMF, Planning Division Prior to requesting construction bids. Building Inspection Division PAMF, Planning Division AI the stall of construction and as warranted thereafter to ensure compliance. Prior to requesting construction bids. Building Inspection Division At the start of construction and as warranted thereafter to ensure compliance. i(E1f: PAMF Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Divisions All pan of Palo Mto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 2 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT IV.A Land Use A.1: The proposed project would he inconsistent with current Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning designations. 1V.11 Traffic, Circulation and Parking 11.4: Vehicles weaving from the extended Palm Drive -University Avenue on -ramp to southbound El Camino Real would result in unacceptable operations for the segment of El Camino Real between the ramp and the Embarcadero Road intersection. 8.6: The proposed PAMF relocation site would not be directly served by public transit. MITIGATION MEASURE A.1: As part of the project, the sponsor has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of the project site. 8.4: To improve operations for University -Palm on -ramp traffic weaving across southbound El Camino Real, the City and the project sponsor shall request that Caltrans provide that the proposed traffic signal at the PAMF main entrance include separate phases for southbound on -ramp traffic and southbound mainline traffic, through the use of programmed visibility signal heads. B.6.a: The project sponsor and the City shall, prior to project occupancy, collaborate with Stanford University and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to design the proposed Urban Lane extension to provide a convenient connection between the PAMF campus and the CalTrain Station for vehicles (including shuttle buses), bicycles and pedestrians. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY A.1.1: Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendment and approval of rezoning. along with amendment of PF zone regulations, would eliminate the impact. No further action is required. 8.4.1: Submit request for a traffic signal to Caltrans, and include a copy of the request in the project tile. Document Caltrans review and response to request. B.6.a.1: Prepare and execute a memorandum of understanding among the affected parties setting forth the terms and conditions under which the Urban lane extension would be constructed and authorizing an application to the City to construct the extension. Planning Division. Transportation Division Planning Division MONITORING REPORTING SCHEDULE Prior to project constructitnt. Prior to project occupancy. KEY: PAMF = Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 3 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AN REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE B.6.b: The project sponsor shall provide pedestrian pathways between the project buildings and the proposed internal shuttle stops and any bus stop locations on El Camino Real that may later he proposed. B.6.c: Should Stanford University elect not to serve the project site with the Marguerite shuttle, the project sponsor shall submit, to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for City Council approval, plans to operate a shuttle service between the Palo Alto CalTrain Station and the project site during normal business hours. MONITORING 1 REPORTING MONITORING ANI) REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY B.6.a.2: Should no agreement be reached regarding construction of the Urhan Lane extension, the City shall consider approval of Alternative R, No Urban Lane. B.6.b.1: Review and approve site plans for locations of internal sidewalks. B.6.b.2: Provide pedestrian pathways to any bus stop locations along El Camino Real that may he proposed in the future, subject to Planning Division review. Planning Division, City Council Planning Division PAMF, Planning Division B.6.b.3: All sidewalks shall he constructed prior PAMF to project occupancy. B.6.c.1: Prepare and execute memorandum of PAMF understanding setting forth the terms and conditions for Stanford's provision of Marguerite shuttle service to the PAMF campus and submit the memorandum to the Planning Division. B.6.c.2: Should no agreement he reached regarding provision of Marguerite service, PAMF shall submit a plan for operation of a shuttle service. PAMF. City Council MONI'T'ORING 1 REPORTING SCHEDI'LE At the time of project approval. Prior to final site plan approval. Prior to project approval and ongoing during project operation Of new bus stops are proposed). Prior to project occupancy. At the time of project approval. Prior to project occupanc , KEY: PAMF •• Palo Alto Medical Foundation: Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = Ali pan of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 4 January 8. 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT B.9: Traffic generated by cumulative development, including the proposed project, would affect local intersections, resulting in changes in intersection levels of service, increased delay at intersections operating at LOS E or worse, and entering volumes in excess of the City's approved 2010 volumes. MITIGATION MEASURE B.4.a: To improve intersection operations at the El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road•Galvez Street intersection, if a second left -turn lane were not constructed to accommodate left -turn volumes in excess of the Caltrans standard of 300 vehicles per lane. the City could install a second southbound left -turn lane on El Camino Real, with the project sponsor required to pay a proportionate share of the cost based on impact. This measure could be implemented as the intersection LOS approached LOS F, as evaluated through periodic monitoring to be carried out by the City and/or through subsequent environmental documentation. MONITORING ! REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY B.9.a.1: Monitor LOS at the El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road-Galvez Street intersection to determine whether a second southbound left turn lane is warranted. B.9.a.2: Prepare a report documenting LOS, based on traffic counts, and specifying improvements required to achieve acceptable LOS; submit to the City Council. Counts could be obtained from subsequent traffic studies or environmental documentation, or could be taken by the Transportation Division. B.9.a.3: Obtain Caltrans approval for installation Planning Division, of a second southbound left -turn lane and install lane. Obtain funding from PAMF for proportionate share of cost. Transportation Division Transportation Division Transportation Division MONITORING ! REPORTING SCIIEDULF, Periodically during proje construction and operation. Initially at the time of project approval and, thereafter, annually following commencement of project operations. When intersection improvements are determined to be necessary, based on intersection i.oS or southhoxnxl Left -tan volume. as determined by Caltrans. KEY: PAMF Palo Alto Medical Foundation: Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building inspection Division = All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Pages January 8, 1996. PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE B.9.b: To improve intersection operations at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection, the City could install an exclusive northbound right - turn lane and an exclusive southbound right -turn lane on El Camino and extend the second westbound left -turd lane on Page Mill Road, with the project sponsor required to pay a proportionate share of the cost based on impact. This measure could be implemented as the intersection LOS approached LOS F, as evaluated through periodic monitoring to be carried out by the City and/or through subsequent environmental documentat ion. MONITORING 1 REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY B.9.b.1: Monitor LOS at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection to determine whether the proposed additional turn lanes are warranted. B.9.b.2: Prepare a report documenting LOS, based on traffic counts, and specifying improvements required to achieve acceptable LOS: submit to the City Council. Counts could be obtained from subsequent traffic studies or environmental documentation, or could he taken by the Transportation Division. B.9.a.3: Obtain Caltranr approval for installation Planning Division, of an exclusive northbound right -turn lane and an excluNive southbound right -turn lane on El Camino Real and extend the second westbound left -turn lane on Page Mill Road. Obtain funding from PAMF for proportionate share of cost. Transportation Division Transportation Division Transportation Division MONITORING 1 REPORTING SCHEDULE Periodically during proje canstrr ion and operatiot Initially at the time of project approval and. thereafter, annually following contmernxment of project operations. When intersection improvements are determined to he necessary, based on intersection LOS or southbound left -turn volume, as eetermined by Cahrans. KEY: PAMF = Palo Alto Medical Foundation: Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division A(I part of Palo Alto Depanment of Planning and Community Emimntnent Page 6 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT IV.D Public Serviced and Utilities D.I: The project would generate additional wastewater flows that could exceed the capacity of local sewer lines. D.4: Increases in solid waste generated by the project, as compared with current PAMF waste generation, would be small but would contribute incrementally to the cumulative impacts of solid waste on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURE D. I: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall perform flow metering and a capacity study of the 27 -inch sewer adjacent to the site and, if necessary, shall contribute a proportionate share of required improvements. D.4: Prior to occupancy of the new PAMF facility, the project sponsor shall work with the City's Division of Public Works Operations/Recycling (PWO/R) to design and implement new source reduction, recycling, and composting programs. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY D.1.1: Conduct a sewer capacity study and PAMF submit the study to the Utilities Engineering Division, City Water, Gas and Wastewater Utility for review. Pay a proportionate share of (he costs of any necessary sewer improvements that are identified in the study. D.I.2: Review the results of the sewer capacity Engineering Division study to determine whether sewer improvements are necessary. Notify PAMF of any necessary improvements. D.4.1: Monitor PAMF operations to verify compliance with source reduction, recycling, and Operations/Recycling composting programs. if non-compliance is noted, notify PAMF of required actions. D.4.2: Prepare an annual report on compliance with solid waste reduction and recycling requirements, with additional reports as necessary to document non-compliance recycling program to be approved by the Division of Public Works, Operations/Recycling, prior to project occupancy, and remedial action(s) required. and include the report in the project file. Division of Public Works MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE. Prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Prior to issuance of grading. excavation and building permits. Periodically during pmje operation. PAMF, Division of Public Annually during project Works Operations/Recycling operation. • KEY; PAMF = Pato Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division. Transportation Division, Building inspection Division = All pan of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 7 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS • • SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT D.5: Demolition of the existing structure at the project site and constructiom of the proposed facility would generate solid waste that would contribute incrementally to the cumulative impacts of solid waste on the environment. D.6: Existing plans for the proposed facility do not include storage areas for recyclahles or compostables; this might hinder efforts to increase recycling within the facility. 1V.E Toxic and Hazardous Materials E.1: Construction activities could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to contaminated soil or groundwater. MITIGATION MEASURE D.5: During demolition and construction of the proposed project, the project sponsor shall require the demolition and construction contractors to maximize diversion of materials, D.6: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall revise the project plans to include storage space for projected rate of production of recyclable and cnmpostahle materials, E.1.a: The project sponsor shall monitor ongoing remediation activities on the project site to completion, MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY D.5.1: Prepare contract specifications for demolition and construction contractors that include requirements to maximize diversion of materials. Submit the specifications to the Department of Public Works for approval.. D.5.2: Monitor compliance with requirements for diversion of materials. if non-compliance is noted, notify project sponsor and contractors of required action(s). D.6.1: Review project plans to ensure storage space for recyclable and cnmpostahle materials is Operations/Recycling included in the final site plan. Notify PAMF in writing of any remedial action(s) that are required. E.1.2.1: Prepare or have prepared for submission to the Planning Division and Palo Alto Department Fite Department a final report on the results of site remediation, including documentation of closure by the Santa Clara Valley Water District of the former Chevron site and certification of soil remediation by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Compliance Division and/or PAMF's consultant. MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE PAMF, Division of Public. Prior In requesting Works, Operations/ Recycling construction bids. PAMF, Division of Public Works Operations/Recycling Division of Public Works PAMF, Palo Alto Fire Periodically during projc demolition and construction. Prior to issuance of building permits. Following completion of site remediation. KEY: PAMF a Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building inspection Division = All part or Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 8 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE E.1.b: The project sponsor shall, if made necessary by the results of the remediation programs identified in Mitigation Measure E.t.a, conduct risk assessment to determine additional remediation requirements, if any. E.l.c: The project sponsor shall, if made necessary by the results of the remediation programs identified in Mitigation Measure E.1.a and the Risk Assessment identified in Mitigation Measure E.t.b, conduct further site studies to characterize on -site contamination. E.l.d: The project sponsor shall, if made necessary by the results of the remediation programs identified in Mitigation Measure E.t.a, the Risk Assessment identified in Mitigation Measure E.1.b, and the Site Studies identified in Mitigation Measure E.1.c, prepare site remediation plans for residual site contamination, if any. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY E.I.b.1: 1f determined to he necessary by the PAMF, Palo Alto Fire Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) or Department the Santa Clara Co,. .y Department of Environmental Health (DEH), prepare a risk assessment for the project site and submit it to 'hose agencies for approval. Submit the assessment to the Palo Alto Fire Department for inclusion in the project file. E.1.c.1: If necessary, conduct further site studies PAM', Palo Alto Fire to characterize on -site contamination. Submit the Department results of these studies to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Santa Clara County Water District for review. and to the Palo Alto Fire Department for inclusion in the project file. E.t.d.!: If necessary, prepare site remediation PAMF, Palo Alto Fire plans far residual site contamination, if any. Department Submit plans to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Santa Clara County Water District for review, and to the Palo Alto Fire Department for inclusion in the project file. MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE Prior to issuance of grading. excavation and building permits. Prior 10 issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. KEY: PAMF Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 9 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT IV.F Drainage and Water Quality F.L: Soil excavation could release pollutants currently bound up in soils into runoff, contributing to the degradation of surface water quality. Construction of new buildings, roadways and landscaped areas could also contribute to typical urban pollutants discharged into surface waters, degrading their quality. MITIGATION MEASURE E.1.e: The project sponsor shall, if made necessary by the results of the remediation programs identified in Mitigation Measure E.t.a, the Risk Assessment identified in Mitigation Measure E.I.b, the Site Studies identified in Mitigation Measure E.I.c, and the Site Remediation Plan identified in Mitigation Measure E.1.d, prepare a site safety plan to protect construction workers from contamination. F.1.a: To mitigate the potential sources of eurface runoff -borne pollutants, and their potential to degrade surface waters. construction of the project shall incorr -rate Best Construction Manager .nt Practices into pre -approved pl;'n as a component of an approved Grading Permit, 1'reparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan identifying the specific Best Construction Management Practices to be followed during the project is the responsibility of the project sponsor. MONITORING REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY E.1.e,I: if necessary, prepare a site safety plan PAMF. Palo Alto Fire to protect construction workers from Department contamination. Submit the plan to the Environmental Protection Division for review and to the Palo Alto Fire Department for inclusion in the project file. F.1.a.1: Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the project site that includes Division Be: t Construction Management Practices. Submit this plan to the Department of Public Works (DPW), Engineering Division, for approval, and to the City of Menlo Park for review. F.t,a.2: Monitor construction activities to'verify compliance with Best Construction Management Practices. If non-compliance is noted, notify project sponsor and contractor of required actions. PAMF. DPW Engineering Engineering Division MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE Prior to issuance of grading. excavation and building permits. Prier to issuance of grading. excavation and building permits. At the Mart of construction and as neede during project construction to ensure compliance. . KEY: PAMF m Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, $uihling Inspection Division = All pan of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 10 January 8, 1996 • • PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT MONITORING / MONITORING 1 REPORTING REPORTING MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE F.I.b: The project is subject to all F.I.b.1: File a Notice of Intent with the Slate PAMF Prior to issuance of requirements of the National Pollutant Water Resources Control Board and suhmit copy grading, excavation and Discharge Elimination System to the Department of Public Works, Engineering building permits. (NPDES). Division. Prepare a Storm Water Pollution PAMF, DPW Engineering Prevention Plan for the project site that includes Division Best Construction Management Practices. Submit this plan to the Department of Public Works iDPW), Engineering Division, for approval. F.I.b.3: Prepare contract specifications for PAMF, DPW Engineering Prior to requesting construction conlractors to carry out the Storm Division construction bids. Water Pollution Prevention Program and submit the specifications to the DPW Engineering Division for approval. F.l.b.4: Monitor compliance with NPDES requirements, including Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. If non-compliance is noted, notify PAMF and contractor of required actions. Prior to issuance of grz ing, excavation and building permits. DPW Engineering Division. At the start of other regulatory agencies construction and as neede (e.g., Regional Water Quality during project Control Board) construction 10 ensure compliance. . KEY: PAMF = Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 11 January 8, 1996 1 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT IV.G Geology and Seismic Hazards G.2: In the event of an earthquake. project occupants could be exposed to safety hazards related to hazardous materials nn -site (see Section IV.E, Toxic and Hazardous Materials). MITIGATION MEASURE G.2: The project sponsor shall take feasible steps to minimize potential earthquake safety risks related to hazardous materials. Specific steps may include appropriate seismic safety provisions, such as prohibiting the storage of hazardous materials in containers above head level (about five feet), anchoring hazardous materials shelves and heavy equipment to walls and floors, requiring sufficient lips on shelves, constructing heavy doors that are designed to remain shut during earthquake vibrations, providing hand - operable closures for vents and air ducts, and other provisions as discussed in the Association of Bay Area Governments' Hazardous Material Problems in Earthquakes: A Guide to Their Cause and Mitigation. Other measures would he implemented as recommended by the Palo Alto Fire Department. Additionally, PAMF's Emergency Procedures Manual shall he periodically revised to be consistent with changes in the facilities and operations. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY G.2.1: Review the project plans and recommend additional measures to minimize potential earthquake safety risks related to hazardous materials, if necessary. Include any measures recommended in addition to those proposed as part of the project in the project file. PAMF, Building Inspection Division, Palo Alto Fire Department MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEMA .E Prior to issuance of building permits. KEY: PAMF = Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Envimnment Page 12 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT G.3: Proposed buildings, roadways, and parking areas would present a potential danger to people and damage to structures resulting from earthquake -induced ground failure. Liquefaction of sand layers in the subsurface may result in cracking of surface pavements, and deposition of sands in deep subgrade structures and infrastructure. Earthquake -induced differential settlement may lead to cracking of pavement surfaces and structural damage to buildings. G.5: Buildings, roadways, parking areas, and buried infrastructure would be subject to potentially significant damage from differential settlement of soils. MITIGATION MEASURE G.3; The project sponsor shall employ an engineer qualified in earthquake engineering to incorporate into the final design all economically feasible engineering methods to reduce the potential for damage from the possible types of earthquake -induced ground failure at the site. All new structures shall be designed to comply with the current version of the Building Code with California Amendments at the time of final design. Designs should be responsive to anticipated maximum probable earthquakes for faults in the region, such as 7,1 Richter magnitude on the San Francis, o Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault with accompanying bedrock acceleration and wave amplification. Site -specific geotechnical investigations addressing individual structures arc strongly advised. G.5: The sponsor shall employ all feasible engineering methods to minimize the potential for damage from differential settlement. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONiTORINt.; 1 REPORTING SCHEDULE G.3.1: Review project plans to ensure applicahle PAMF, Building inspection Prior to issuance of engineering methods are incorporated into the Division building permits. design. Document compliance or non-compliance and remedial action(s) required of the project sponsor and submit this documentation to the project file, G.5.1: Review project plans to ensure applicahle PAMF, Building Inspection Prior to issuance of engineering methods are incorporated into the Division building permits. design. Document compliance or non-compliance and remedial action(s) required of the project sponsor and submit this documentation to the project file. .KEY: PAMF = Palo Alto Medical Foundation: Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 13 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPAL t SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT G.6: Construction of buildings, roadways, parking areas and structures, and other improvements would disrupt and displace site soils, increasing the potential for water and wind erosion of graded soil and imported fill. This, in turn, would increase the potential for discharge of sediments into storm drains and surface waters, MITIGATION MEASURE G.6: The project sponsor shall employ best construction methods to reduce the potential for silt to enter storm water collection systems. These methods may include diverting all runoff in construction areas into temporary siltation basins; performing as much foundation construction as possible during the dry season (May to October); watering soils prune 10 wind erosion during construction; and covering stockpiles of soil with impervious tarpaulins. Surcharge material (if employed) should he stabilized by appropriate methods, such as use of jute -netting or hydroseeding to ensure that it will not erode excessively. Refer also to mitigation measures in Section IV.H, Air Quality. MONITORING 1 REPORTING MONITORING. AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY G.6.1: Prepare contract specifications for construction contractor that include the use of hest Division construction methods to reduce the potential for silt to enter storm, water collection systems, and submit specifications to the Department of Public Works (DPW), Engineering Division for approval.. G.6.2: Monitor compliance with requirements for (rest construction methods. If non-compliance is noted, notify project sponsor and contractor of required actions. PAMF. DPW Engineering DI'W Engineering Division MONITORING I REPORTING SCHEDULE Prior to requesting construciion bids. At the start of construction and as node during project construction to ensure compliance. • KEY: PAMF = Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 14 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT G.7: During construction, deep pits may he excavated that could collapse. resulting in a hazard to workers and adjacent structures and facilities, and construction vibration could damage adjacent properties. MITIGATION MEASURE G.7.a: Prior to construction of a specific building, if drilling of piles is anticipated, the project sponsor shall conduct a pre -construction survey of buildings directly adjacent to the construction site to identify any that may be particularly sensitive to vibration and potential damage from settlement. Results of the survey shall be reported to the City of Palo Alio. The City Engineer or Chief Building Official shall determine whether any additional reasonable measures to protect adjacent structures are warranted. G.7.b: If construction activities require deep pits, appropriate shoring of the excavation walls shall he used. Additional measures to protect adjacent structures close to an excavation pit wall may also be needed. All pits shall be fenced to minimize hazards to passers-by. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS G.7,a.1: Conduct a pre -construction survey of adjacent buildings if drilling of piles is anticipated. Suhmit -results of survey to Building Inspection Division and Department of Public Works (DPW), Engineering Division, for review. G.7.a.2: Based on the results of the pre -construction survey, determine whether any additional measures to protect adjacent structures are warranted. Notify PAMF of these measures in writing. G.7.b.I: Prepare contract specifications for excavation contractor to include shoring of excavation walls if construction activities require deep pits, and install fencing around pits to minimize hazards to passers-by. Submit the specifications to the Building Inspection Division and Department of Pubcic Works (DPW), Engineering Division,, for approval. G.7.b.2: Monitor compliance with requirements for deep excavation pits. If non-compliance is noted, notify project sponsor and excavation contractor of required actions. MONITORING / REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY PAMF, Building Inspection Division, DPW Engineering Division City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official PAMF, Building Inspection Division, DPW Engineering Division PAMF, Building Inspection Division MONITORING / REPORTING SCIIEDULE Prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Prior 10 issuance of grading, excavation and building permits, Prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. At the start of construction and as neede during project construction to ensure compliance. KEY: PAMF = Pato Alto Medical Foundation: Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = Alt pan of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 15 January 8, ,1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITICABLE IMPACT G.8: During construction, excavation required for building foundations and underground parking would require the removal of 106.000 cubic yards of earth. Some of this material would have to he disposed at an as yet unknown location. MITIGATION MEASURE 6.8: Prior to issuing a Building Permit, the City shall require the project sponsor to specify the disposal location of all spoil material taken from the site. If any contaminated materials are encountered during excavation, these shall he tested, and either treated or disposed in a facility licensed to receive that class of material. MONITORING 1 REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY G.7.b.3: Review design and proposed construction activities to determine whether additional measures to project adjacent structures are warranted. Notify PAMF of additional requirements, if any, in writing. 6.8.1: Identify disposal location for all spoil material taken from the site and submit information to the Fire -Department, Environmental Protection Division. for approval. 6.8.2: Report results of testing nn contaminated materials encountered during excavation, if any, to the Fire Department, Environmental Protection Division. G.8.3: Ensure appropriate treatment or disposal of contaminated materials encountered during excavation, if any, and prepare report on such activity for the Fire Department, Environmental Protection Division. City Engineer, Chief Building Official PAMF, Fire Department PAMF PAMF MONITORING 1 REPORTING SCHEDULE Prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Prior to issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Ongoing during excavation activities, as necessary. Ongoing during excavation activities, as necessary. KEY: PAMF m Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 16 January 8, 1996 • PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS • • SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT 1V.H Air Quality H.1: Construction activities would generate dust from earthmoving and would generate combustion emissions due to operation of heavy equipment and construction -worker commute trips. While temporary, construction -related emissions would he a significant effect of the project. IV.K Cultural Resources K.I: Excavation required for the project could result in damage to previously unknown prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. MITIGATION MEASURE 11.1: The project sponsor shall require that construction contractors implement a dust abatement program to reduce the contribution of project construction to local PM 10 concentrations. K.1.a: Prior to the start of excavation, the project sponsor would retain a qualified historic archaeologist, who would design and carry out a program of on -site monitoring of alt ground -disturbing activities. K.I.b: If previously unknown subsurface cultural resources are discovered during excavation activities, the project sponsor would ensure that excavation were temporarily halted and would consult the qualified historical archaeologist as to the importance of the resources. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY 11.1.1: Prepare contract specifications for the construction contractor that include implementation of a dust abatement program. Submit specifications to the Planning Division for approval. 11.1.2: Monitor compliance with dust abatement program requirements. If non-compliance is noted, notify project sponsor and contractor of required changes in practices or equipment. PAMF, Planning Division Building Division K.1.a.1: Submit the archaeologist's name and PAMF qualifications to the Planning Divisionfor review. K.1.a.2: The archaeologist would submit the monitoring program to the Planning Division for Archaeologist review. PAMF, Qualified Historical K.1.b.1: Report to the Planning Division on the PAMF discovery of subsurface cultural resources. MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE Prior to issuance of grading. excavation and building permits. At the start of construction and as neede during project construction to ensure compliance. Prior to the issuance of grading. excavation and building permits. Prior to the issuance of grading, excavation and building permits. Ongoing during project excavation. KEY: PAMF = Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division = All pan of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Envimnrnennt Page 17 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL. FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT MITIGABLE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE K.1.c: Should important suhsurface cultural resources he discovered during excavation a program of further investigation, as recommended in Appendix K of the CEQA guidelines, would he undertaken by the project sponsor. This program shall be prepared in consultation with City staff prior to issuance of building permits, and shall include the following components: • The prime construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) would be cautioned on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing artifacts, human remains, bottles, and other cultural materials from the project site, • The archaeologist would have the authority to temporarily halt excavation and construction activities in the immediate vicinity (ten -meter radius) of a find if significant or potentially significant cultural resources are exposed and/or adversely affected by construction operations. MONITORING / REPORTING MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY K.1,c.1: See individual actions under Mitigation Measure K.I.c. PAMF, Qualified Historical Archaeologist MONITORING / REPORTING SCHEDULE Upon discovery of suhsurface cultural resources. KEY: PAMF Palo Alto Medical Foundation: Planning Division, Transponation Division, Building Inspection Division All pan of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Envimnrnent Page. 18 January 8, 1996 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS • • SIGNIFICANT MITIGARLE IMPACT MONITORING / MONITORING REPORTING REPORTING MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS RESPONSIRII.rrY SCHEDULE • Reasonable time would he allowed for the qualified archaeologist to notify the proper authorities for a more detailed inspection and examination of the exposed cultural resources. During this time, excavation and construction would not he allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find; however, those activities could continue in other areas Mille project site. • If any find were determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, representatives of the construction contractor and the City, the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Native American community !if the discover is an aboriginal burial) would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. • All cultural materials recovered as part of the monitoring program would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared according to current professional standards. KEY; PAMF r Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Planning Division, Transportation Division, Building Inspection Division All part of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Page 19 January 8, 1996