HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 9516DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Resolution No 9516
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the
Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for 2555 Park
Boulevard Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations
I. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Findings is made with respect to approval of a Major Architectural Review
for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and states the findings of the City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") relating to the potentially significant environmental effects of the
. project.
The City Council has approved the following modified project as requested by applicant, Tarlton
Properties:
1. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan.
2. Approval of Major Architectural Review.
Approval of the Major Architectural Review and other requested entitlements constitutes the
project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section
(§) 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines § 15378, and these determinations of the
City Council.
RECITALS
A. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates land for Community Commercial
Development.
B. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a new 24,466
square foot office building and onsite parking at 2555 Park Boulevard.
C. The City prepared an Initial Study and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) on April 4, 2014; prepared a Draft EIR and released
it for public comment in August 2014; received public comments on the Draft EIR until
November 19, 2014, including at a public hearing held before the Architectural Review Board
on October 16, 2014, a public hearing held before the Planning and Transportation
Commission on October 29, 2014, and a public hearing held before the Historic Resources Board
on November 19, 2014.
D. The Planning and Transportation Commission gave notice of a public hearing to
consider and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Final EIR and the
150616 jb 0131441 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the Planning and
Transportation Commission on April 29, 2015.
E. The City Council gave notice of a public hearing to consider and act upon the Final
EIR for the 2555 Park Boulevard project, and a public hearing was held before the City Council
on June 1, 2015.
F. After holding public hearings, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR as
prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the
Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR dated April 2015), the comments of the public,
both oral and written, and all written materials in the record connected therewith.
G. At the conclusion of the public process described above for the project, the City
Council certified the Final EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program, findings of fact
and a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the requested entitlements.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with all requirements
of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Impact Ordinance, codified in Title
11 of the City's Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Planning Commission
and the City Council. The Final EIR was prepared under the supervision of the City and reflects
the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, and bases
the findings stated below on such review and other substantial evidence in the record.
SECTION 3. The City finds that the Final EIR considers a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public
participation and a reasoned choice. Thus, the alternatives analysis in the EIR is sufficient to
carry out the purposes of such analysis under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete, adequate and
in full compliance with CEQA and as providing an adequate basis for considering and acting
upon the 2555 Park Boulevard project and makes the following specific findings with respect
thereto.
SECTION 5. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the Final EIR with
respect to all impacts initially identified as "less than significant" and finds that those impacts
have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.
This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant and unavoidable or
significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level by
mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the
mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below.
SECTION 6. All mitigation measures in the Final EIR are adopted and incorporated
into the 2555 Park Boulevard project.
150616 jb 0131441 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
SECTION 7. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP} includes all mitigation
measures adopted with respect to the project and explains how and by whom they will be
implemented and enforced.
SECTION 8. The mitigation measures and the MMP have been incorporated into the
Conditions of Approval for the Major Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception
and have thus become part of and limitations upon the entitlements conferred by the Major
Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception and other project approvals.
SECTION 9. The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary
statements. Reference should be made to the Final EIR for a more complete description.
SECTION 10. The Planning Division is directed to file a Notice of Determination with
the County Clerk within five (5} working days in accordance with CEQA §21152(a} and
CEQA Guidelines §15094.
Ill. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
This Statement of Findings addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed
2555 Park Boulevard project, located in the City of Palo Alto on APN 124-29-0lllocated at 2555
Park Boulevard. This Statement of Findings is made pursuant to CEQA §§21081 and 21081.6
and CEQA Guidelines §15091.
Significant effects of the 2555 Park Boulevard project were identified in the Draft EIR. CEQA
§21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for
identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. Less than significant effects (without mitigation} of the project were also identified in
the Draft EIR and Initial Study. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written
findings for less than significant effects.
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with
implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however,
where substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that they are infeasible or where
the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. Specifically, CEQA
Guidelines §15091 states:
3. No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
-which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible
findings are:
• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
150616 jb 0131441 3
DocuSign Envelope I D: FFDBFE 1 0-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
• Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
• Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
4. The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has
concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific
reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(l), the agency shall also adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit
conditions; agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
The "changes or alterations" referred to in §15091(a)(l) above, that are required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of
the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines
§15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Legal Effects of Findings
150616 jb 0131441 4
DocuSign Envelope 10: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City of
Palo Alto hereby binds itself to implementing or ensuring the project applicant implements
these measures. These findings, in other words, constitute a binding set of obligations that will
come into effect when the City Council formally approves the 2555 Park Boulevard project.
CEQA requires that when a public agency has made the findings under CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(1) relative to an EIR, the public agency must also adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the revisions and mitigation measures that will avoid significant impacts.
The mitigation measures required of the 2555 Park Boulevard project are identified in the MMP.
The MMP is adopted concurrently with these findings as required by CEQA §21081.6{a)(1), and
will be implemented throughout construction and operation of the project. The Planning and
Community Environment Department will use the MMP to track and enforce compliance with
all mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public review during the
compliance period.
IV. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply where the subject words or acronyms are used i.n these
findings:
"ARB" means the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board.
"ACM" means asbestos-containing material.
"BAAQMD" means the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
"Cal-OSHA" means California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
"City Council" means the City of Palo Alto City Council.
"CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §21000
et seq.).
"Comprehensive Plan" means the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted
in 2007 with subsequent amendments.
"Condition" means a Condition of Approval adopted by the City in connection with
approval of the project.
"City" means the City of Palo Alto.
"Draft EIR" means the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated August 2014 for the
proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.
"DTSC" means the California Department ofT oxic Substances Control.
"EIR" means environmental impact report.
"Environmental Impact Ordinance" means the City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact
Ordinance, as codified in Title 11 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code.
"EPA" means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
150616 jb 0131441 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
"Final EIR" means the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP
and Initial Study dated April 4, 2014, the Draft EIR dated August 2014, the Final EIR
dated April2015).
"HASP" means Health and Safety Plan.
"HRB" means the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board.
"LCM" means lead-containing material.
"MMP" means the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
"NOP" means Notice of Preparation of an EIR.
"P& TC"means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission.
"PCE" means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department.
"Project" means the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project.
"PTOD" means Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development.
"RWQCB" means the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"SMP" means Site Mitigation Plan.
"Zoning Ordinance" means the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, including all
amendments thereto.
V. PROJECTBACKGROUND
The project would demolish the existing 10,800-square-foot building at 2555 Park Boulevard
and construct a new 24,466 square foot office building and onsite parking. The existing
building was constructed in 1964 and appears eligible for inclusion in the California Register
under Criteria 3. The existing and proposed office use is consistent with the land use and
zoning designations for the site.
VI. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
Project Objectives
As reported in the Draft EIR, the applicant's stated objectives of the proposed 2555 Park
Boulevard project include:
1. Redevelop the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a safe, healthy, and energy-efficient
building that meets current standards for structural design, site and building
accessibility, and hazardous materials.
2. Develop a new office building on the site that generates increased rental income and
supports the vision of the City's Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan, specifically
Goal CACP-3, which calls for promoting Park Boulevard as a hub of innovation and
entrepreneurship for small new companies and supports related planning initiatives
such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
150616 jb 0131441 6
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
3. Increase the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the
building height and providing parking at grade and underground.
4. Create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks, amenities,
and street trees.
s. Provide adequate parking to ensure the project is fully parked on site.
Project Description
The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing two-story, 10,800-square-foot
general office building and 28 surface parking spaces, and the construction of a new three-story,
24,466-square-foot office building with a roof deck and 92 parking spaces. A conceptual site plan
of the proposed project is shown in Draft EIR Figure 2.4, and conceptual renderings are shown
in Draft EIR Figure 2.5.
A complete description of the project as proposed by the project applicant is provided in Section
2.4 of the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR.
VII. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with CEQA §21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City's decision on the
2555 Park Boulevard project includes, without limitation, the following documents:
• The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
project;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members ofthe public during the comment
period on the NOP (provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR};
• The Draft EIR (August 2014} for the project;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment
period on the Draft EIR;
• All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project,
in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
• The Final EIR (April 2015} for the project, including comments received on the Draft
EIR and responses to those comments;
• Documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs;
• The project MMP;
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project and all
documents cited or referred to therein;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and with respect to the City's action on the project;
• All documents submitted to the City (including the P&TCand City Council) by other
public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project;
150616 jb 0131441 7
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings,
and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information
sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
• The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and all environmental documents prepared
in connection with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan;
• The City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance (City of
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 11 and Title 18), and all other City Code provisions
cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City;
• Any and all resolutions and/or ordinances adopted by the City regarding the project,
and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those
resolutions;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state,
and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
• Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA §21167.6(e).
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council, P& TC or City
Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many
of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware
in approving the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency
Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cai.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988) 205 Cai.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert
advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For
that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's
decisions relating to approval of the 2555 Park Boulevard project. (See Public Resources
Code §21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries c. City Council of City of San Jose (1986)
181 Cai.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33
Cai.App.4th 144, 153, 155.)
The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director, 285
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
VIII. GENERAL FINDINGS
Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts
identified as "no impact" or "less than significant" and finds that those impacts have been
described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.
150616 jb 0131441 8
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
This finding applies to the following impacts determined to be "less than significant" based on
the analysis in the Initial Study (circulated with the NOP and provided in Appendix A to the
Draft EIR) or in the Draft EIR. Some impacts that were identified in the Initial Study as being
"potentially significant" were later determined through the analysis in the Draft EIR to be "less
than significant."
Aesthetics
Substantially Damage Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway
Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its
Surroundings
Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Public View or View Corridor
Violate Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Visual Resources
Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or
Nighttime Views in the Area
Substantially Shadow Public Open Space (Other Than Public Streets and Adjacent
Sidewalks) Between 9:00A.M. and 3:00P.M. from September 21 to March 21
Agriculture and Forestry
Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use Conflict
with Agricultural Zoning or a Williamson Act Contract
Conflict with Forest Land or Timberland Zoning
Result in Loss or Conversion of Forest Land
Cause Other Changes to the Existing Environment Which Could Result in Conversion of
Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest
Use
Air Quality
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air
Quality Violation
Contribute to Direct or Indirect Operational Emissions Exceeding the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District Criteria Air Pollutants of 80 Pounds Per Day and/or
15 Tons Per Year for Nitrogen Oxides, Reactive Organic Gases, and Fine
Particulate Matter
Contribute to Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Exceeding the State Ambient Air
Quality Standard
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Levels ofT oxic Air Contaminants
Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Fail to Implement Applicable Construction Emission Control Measures Recommended
in Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines
Biological Resources
150616 jb 0131441 9
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Adversely Affect Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
Adversely Affect Riparian Habitat, Federally Protected Wetlands, or Other Sensitive
Natural Community
Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan
Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting ~iological Resources, Including the
City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement or Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
Cultural and Historic Resources
Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Local Cultural Resource Recognized by City Council
Resolution
Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature
Disturb Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside Formal Cemeteries
Geology and Soils
Exposure to Rupture of an Earthquake Fault, Seismic Ground Shaking, Seismic-Related
Ground Failure, Liquefaction, or Landslides
Create Substantial Erosion or Loss ofTopsoil Cause
Substantial Siltation
Exposure to Unstable Earth Conditions or Changes in Geologic Substructures
Located on Expansive Soils
Exposure to Geologic and Geomorphological Hazards
Located on Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or
Alternative Waste Water Disposal Systems, If Sewers Are Not Available
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Create Hazardous Emissions or Waste or Use Hazardous Substances Within One-
Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Construct a School on a Property Subject to Hazards
Located on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
Expose Residents or Workers to Risks Associated with Public or Private
Airport/ Airstrip
Expose People or Structures to Risks Involving Wildland Fires
Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan
Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment through Routine Transport,
Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During Project Operation
Hydrology and Water Quality
150616 jb 0131441 10
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Expose People or Structures to Flood Risks from a Levee or Dam Failure Adversely
Affect Groundwater Supplies, Recharge, and Existing Flow Patterns Violate Any
Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Result in
Substantial Erosion or Siltation On-or Off Site
Alter the Existing Onsite Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Substantially
Increase Surface Runoff or Result in Flooding On-or Off Site
Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or
Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional
Sources of Polluted Runoff
Place Structures within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area
Expose People or Structures to Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
Cause Stream Bank Instability
Land Use and Planning
Physical Division or Disruption of an Established Community
Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose
of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect
Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan
Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Type or Intensity of Existing or Planned
Land Use in the Area
Create a Land Use Incompatibility
Conflict with Established Residential, Recreational, Educational, Religious, or Scientific
Uses of an Area
Convert Prime, Unique, or Important Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use
Mineral Resources
Noise
Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Valuable to the Region
or State
Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site
Expose Residents to Noise Levels in Excess of Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance
Standards
Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Above Levels Existing
without the Project
Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Public Airport or Public Use Airport
Expose People to Excessive Noise Associated with a Private Airstrip
150616 jb 0131441 11
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 5.0 dB or More in an Existing
Residential Area
Cause the Average 24 Hour Noise Level to Increase by 3.0 dB or More in an Existing
Residential Area where the Average 24 Hour Noise Level Currently Exceeds 60 dB
Result in Indoor Noise Levels for Residential Development to Exceed an Average 24 Hour
Noise Level of 45 dB
Result in Instantaneous Noise Levels of Great than 50 dB in Bedrooms or 55 dB in Other
Rooms in Areas with an Exterior Average 24 Hour Noise Level of 60 dB or
Greater
Generate Construction Noise Exceeding the Daytime Background Ambient Noise Levels
at Sensitive Receptors by 10 dBA or More
Population and Housing
Induce Substantial Population Growth, Directly or Indirectly Displace
Housing or People
Create a Substantial Imbalance between Employed Residents and Jobs
Public Services
Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or
Physically Altered Governmental Facilities or Interfere with the Service Ratios or
Performance Objectives of Local Fire Protection, Police Protection, School, Park,
or Other Public Facilities
Recreation
Contribute to the Substantial Physical Deterioration of Existing Recreational Facilities
Create an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment Due to the Construction or
Expansion of Recreational Facilities
Transportation and Circulation
Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns
Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Circulation System, Including Intersections, Streets,
Highways and Freeways, Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit
Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program
Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
Result in Inadequate Parking Capacity that Impacts Traffic Circulation and Air Quality
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation
Cause a Local Intersection to Deteriorate Below LOS D and Cause an Increase in the
Average Stopped Delay for Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More and the
Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase by 0.01 or More
Cause a Local Intersection Already Operating at LOS E or F to Deteriorate in the
Average Stopped Delay for the Critical Movements by Four Seconds or More
150616 jb 0131441 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Cause a Regional Intersection to Deteriorate from LOS E or Better to LOS For Cause
Critical Movement Delay at an Intersection Operating at LOS F to Increase by
Four Seconds or More and the Critical Volume/Capacity Ratio Value to Increase
by 0.01 or More
Cause a Freeway Segment to Operate at LOS For Contribute Traffic in Excess of 1% of
Segment Capacity to Freeway Segment Operating at LOS F
Cause any Change in Traffic that Would Increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment Index by 0.1 or More
Cause Queuing Impacts Based on a Comparative Analysis between Design Queue
Length and Available Queue Storage Capacity
Impede Development or Function of Planned Pedestrian or Bicycle Facilities
Impede Operation ofTransit System as Result of Congestion
Utilities and Service Systems
Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Water or
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expansion of Existing Storm Water
Drainage Facilities
Require New or Expanded Entitlements to Provide Water Service to the Project
Result in a Determination by the Applicable Wastewater Treatment Provider that It Has
Inadequate Capacity to Serve the Project's Demand in Addition to the Provider's
Existing Commitments
Generate an Amount of Solid Waste that Would Exceed the Permitted Capacity of the
Applicable Landfill
Violate Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste
Result in the Substantial Physical Deterioration of a Public Facility Due to Increased Use
as a Result of the Project
Cumulative Impacts
Generate Noise Levels in Excess of General Plan and Community Plan Standards or Cause
a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant for Which the
Project Region is Non-Attainment
Generate Substantial Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Directly or Indirectly
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Contribute to a Cumulative Excess of Population Beyond Local or Regional Projections
Contribute to Cumulative Loss of Cultural and Historic Resources Listed or Eligible for
150616 jb 0131441 13
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register
of Historic Resources
Contribute to Cumulative Increase in Exposure to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Cause an Increase in Delay or the Volume/Capacity Ratio that Would Exceed Local Traffic
Standards in the Cumulative Traffic Scenario
Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant With
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts
initially identified as "significant" or "potentially significant" that are reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its
associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. This section includes impacts that
were evaluated in the Initial Study and determined to be reduced to less than significant levels
with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study as well as
impacts evaluated in the EIR.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Impact CUL-l: Given the site's location in an area identified as having "moderate"
archaeological sensitivity, there is limited potential for inadvertent impact to
presently unknown subsurface encountered archaeological deposits that may be
encountered during earth moving activities onsite. Such deposits may be important
examples of a major period of California pre-history. Therefore, impacts would be
significant.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-CUL-1: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the
City of Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palo Alto, shall be
retained to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its eligibility for local and state
listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified cultural resource shall be reported
as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto and the Native American Heritage Commission.
Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on California Department of Parks and
Recreation form 523 (archaeological sites). Measures prescribed by these groups
and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are
resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a
mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City of Palo Alto's Cultural
Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4
of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
150616 jb 0131441 14
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to adversely impact
archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will ensure that in the event cultural resources are
discovered, proper evaluation, handling, and treatment measures as dictated by
federal, State, and local regulations are implemented, and the potential for
identification and listing are evaluated by qualified individuals.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Due to the use of potentially hazardous substances during construction of the
proposed project, the project could expose people or the environment to a release
of hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released
onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed
containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and
litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially hazardous
materials, shall be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose
of such materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: A project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Site
Mitigation Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance of grading or building
permits from the City of Palo Alto. The HASP and SMP shall be implemented during
construction activities. The SMP shall outline strategies for managing contaminated
soil and groundwater encountered during project construction and shall discuss the
following:
• Results of previous environmental investigations at the site
• Anticipated contaminants of concern to be encountered
• The procedures and protocols of determining of the extent of the impact of
soil gas from the former dry cleaner
• Development plans
• Likely disposal fate of excavated material based on excavation plan and
contaminants of concerns identified, if any
• Dewatering contingency options
• Stormwater management options
• Monitoring and soil management procedures
• Regulatory considerations
• Planned procedures and notifications.
150616 jb 0131441 15
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
The SMP shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling,
storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be
maintained on site for small spills.
Copies of the HASP and SMP shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation,
and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be
familiarized with these documents.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the potential for the project to result in hazardous
material exposure during construction would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that hazardous materials are controlled
and disposed of properly during construction. Hazardous material handling and
disposal protocol will be listed in a HSP and a SMP, which will be available to
construction workers. These mitigation measures will reduce the potential for people
or the environment to be exposed to hazardous construction materials on-or
offsite to less than significant levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-2: Due to the potential for the existing building to contain asbestos-containing
materials and lead-based paint/coatings, demolition of the building could result in
the release of hazardous materials into the environment, which would be a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: A scope of work for asbestos abatement and guidelines for
proper asbestos removal shall be prepared following local, state, and federal regulations
for any necessary removal of asbestos in accordance with the ProTech survey. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified at least 10 working
days prior to any asbestos removal. Monitoring during abatement shall be conducted to
ensure regulatory compliance. Construction teams working with ACMs must possess a
handling license and a certificate of registration issued by the California Department of
Industrial Relations-Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cai/OSHA). All
abatement workers shall have annual Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA) training. The minimum level of training that construction workers must
complete also includes annual EPA Asbestos Operations and Maintenance training.
Only particular types of equipment and methods of demolition are permitted under
State and Federal regulations. ACMs and LCMs are wetted down to prevent the
formation of dust within (and outside of) the project site, or they are vacuumed up with
a high-efficiency particulate absorption (HEPA) machine to ensure the containment of
95% of particles 0.3 microns (1o-6 meters) or larger in diameter (HEPA Corporation
2004). Prior to permitting demolition workers and other construction workers to
enter the site, the hazardous waste construction team shall inspect the site for final
clean-up. Final clean-up of ACMs shall be conducted by visual inspection and phase
150616 jb 0131441 16
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
contrast microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Final clean-up of LCMs shall
be conducted by visual inspection and HEPA vacuuming of suspect dust and debris
(SCA Environmental 2012). Demolition shall not commence until the removal of ACMs
and LCMs from the site has been confirmed by a certified contractor.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Every contractor/employer who performs work at project
site shall assess California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA)
worker protection rules, California Department of Public Health certification
requirements, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, and state and
federal disposal requirements. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-based
paint/coatings or lead containing materials (LCMs) shall be carried out by a contractor
trained and qualified to conduct lead-related construction work, and all lead-related
work shall be performed in accordance with the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban
Development guidelines (ProTech 2013). Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must be
disposed of in accordance with the EPA's Asbestos National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and LCMs must be handled in accordance with the Cal-
OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1) and disposed of in
accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA
requirements for hazardous waste. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall
incorporate any necessary abatement measures required under these guidelines
and regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: A qualified environmental specialist shall inspect the site
buildings for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other
hazardous building materials prior to demolition. If found, these materials shall be
managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act and other state and federal
guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall
incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards
Act of 1991 (California Public Resource, Section 42160-42185), particularly Section
42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-
containing ballasts, and refrigerants.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to the release of ACMs and LCMs
into the environment would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that ACMs, LCMs, and related
hazardous materials are removed from the project site in compliance with federal,
state, and local standards which prescribe handling protocols to ensure ACMs and
LCMs are not released to the air. Project construction will not be permitted to
commence until registered professionals have confirmed the removal of ACMs and
LCMs from the project site.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
150616 jb 0131441 17
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Impact HAZ-3: Due to the potential for contaminated soils to be encountered, disposed of
during excavation, construction activities could expose individuals or the
environment to hazardous materials should contaminated soils be handled
improperly.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to
characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be
segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of
contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste
regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be
screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be
potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated
and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for
the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction
design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline
procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify
the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be
installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater
can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in
accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A
plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand
should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall
outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It
shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information,
including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated soils would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and
groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate
treatment facility.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-4: Groundwater contaminated with VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons may be
encountered during excavation and could be released into the environment,
resulting in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Soil samples shall be collected at discrete depth intervals to
characterize impacted areas. Impacted soils identified by this sampling shall be
segregated and managed per BAAQMD Rule 8-40, which regulates aeration of
contaminated soil, as applicable, and in accordance with state and federal waste
150616 jb 0131441 18
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
regulations. Excavated soil, particularly in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner, shall be
screened during excavation using a field photoionization detector. Soil thought to be
potentially contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) shall be segregated
and characterized. This soil may potentially be profiled as listed dry cleaner wastes for
the purposes of proper disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: A dewatering plan and detailed groundwater extraction
design shall be prepared for the proposed project. The dewatering plan shall outline
procedures that will be used to lower groundwater levels during excavation and specify
the number of groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps that will be
installed around the site perimeter throughout project duration. Extracted groundwater
can go to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) or to the storm drain network in
accordance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A
plan for groundwater discharge pre-treatment shall be developed and kept on-hand
should implementation be necessary. The detailed groundwater extraction design shall
outline chemical testing and thresholds as required by the POTW or NPDES permit. It
shall also provide the dewatering systems layout and well construction information,
including depths, screened intervals, and pump settings.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation ofthe mitigation measures identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that the impacts related to contaminated groundwater
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will ensure that contaminated soils and
groundwater are removed from the project site and disposed of in an appropriate
treatment facility.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact HAZ-5: Although it is unlikely that vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater
would create a significant hazard, there is the potential for the release of hazardous
materials during. operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would
be significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: The building plans shall include installation of a Certco
Corflex or similar waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane to prevent the migration of
vapor from groundwater into the indoor air of the basement parking garage. The
building plans shall also demonstrate that garage ventilation equipment is sufficient to
meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2011 Standard for Parking
Structures (NFPA 88A) to continuously provide a minimum of two air changes per hour.
The applicant shall monitor indoor air quality in the basement garage to confirm that the
waterproofing/vapor barrier membrane and garage ventilation effectively maintain
indoor air VOC concentrations at levels not harmful to health (i.e., below appropriate
environmental screen levels). An initial round of sampling shall be conducted upon
construction completion and quarterly for the first year of operation. For each sampling
event, a minimum of two 24-hour integrated indoor air samples shall be collected from
the basement garage along with one 24-hour integrated air sample from an
150616 jb 0131441 19
DocuSign Envelope 10: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
exterior location representative of ambient/background conditions. Sampling and
analyticalprocedures shall be conducted in accordance with the Department of Toxic
Substance Control Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011). Results from the indoor air
sampling shall be compared to established regulatory indoor air thresholds for
residential and commercial use. The data shall be evaluated following the 1-year
monitoring period.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and included
in the MMP will ensure that t.he impacts related to vapor intrusion during project
operation would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will limit migration of hazardous vapor into the
basement parking garage and ensure concentrations of hazardous vapors in the
parking garage and office building remain below applicable standards and do not
pose a health risk. Air quality monitoring will ensure that vapor levels are
compatible with existing regulations.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all Impacts
initially identified as "significant" or "potentially significant" that are not reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
and are therefore determined to be "significant and unavoidable" impacts of the proposed
project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each
impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is
considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause a
significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a major
period of California history.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The project proponent shall document the affected
historical resource and its setting. Generally, this documentation shall be in
accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which
includes:
1. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available; should be photographed
with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar.
2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and
interior views, or historic views, where available.
3. Written data: history and description in narrative or outline format.
HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be
met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories such
as the Palo Alto Historical Association Archives at the Palo Alto Public Library,
150616 jb 0131441 20
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System
at Sonoma State University, and/or the California State Library.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which reduce the severity of a significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR. However, implementation of the mitigation measure identified above and
included in the MMP will not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, this impact remains Significant and Unavoidable as discussed in Section
XII of these findings.
Explanation: This mitigation measure will create records of existing drawings, the current
condition of the building, and the current condition of any historic views. The
mitigation measure will create a written record of the history of the existing building
to be submitted to the appropriate repositories for historical records, thereby
ensuring that this impact is mitigated to the extent feasible.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
IX. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS
Feasibility of Project Alternatives
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such project[s]." Where a
lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures,
a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot
be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated,
must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project
alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.
Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency
decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is
actually infeasible. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cai.App.4th
957, 1001-1002.) CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) provides that among the factors that may be
taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are "site suitability,
economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can
reasonably acquire; control or otherwise have access to the alternative site."
Grounds for a conclusion of infeasibility might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy
project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an
alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (ld. at pp.
992, 1000-1003.) It is well established under CEQA that an agency may reject alternatives
based on economic infeasibility. (Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City
and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cai.App.3d 893, 913-914; San Franciscans Upholding
the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cai.App.4th 656, 774;
Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cai.App.4th 1383, 1399-1400;
Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cai.App.4th 1490, 1510.) In addition, the definition of
150616 jb 0131441 21
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
feasibility encompasses "desirability" to the extent that an agency's determination of
infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San
Diego (1982) 133 Cai.App.3d 410; 417.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as
mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative for such reasons.
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice. Further, CEQA Guidelines §15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a
reasonable range of alternatives that would "feasibly obtain most of the basic project
objectives" but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental
effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA case
law has further indicated that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many
alternatives constitute the requisite "reasonable range" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566), and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are
incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association vs. San
Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (1992) 10 Cai.App.4th 908). Thus,
the project objectives described above in section VI of these findings provided the
framework for defining the possible alternatives. Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA
Guidelines and applicable case law as well as the project objectives, the Draft EIR considered
two project alternatives to the 2555 Park Boulevard project: the Building Preservation
Alternative and the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Alternative. The Draft EIR
also considered the no project alternative as required by CEQA.
The City Council finds that that a good-faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the project
and could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, even when the
alternatives might impede the attainment of the project's objectives and might be more costly.
Alternatives were considered that would result in a substantial reduction or elimination of
identified significant cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials impacts.
·However, mitigation measures would continue to be required for each of these impacts under
either of the two project alternatives. The Building Preservation Alternative studied in the EIR
would also reduce, but not to a level of less than significant or entirely avoid, the
proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources.
No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(1) provides the following direction relative to the No Project
Alternative:
150616 jb 0131441
The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated
along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a
no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare
the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of
not approving the proposed project.
22
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed 2555 Park Boulevard project would not
be constructed and that the existing 10,800-square-foot general office building and
surface parking for 28 cars would remain. No demolition would occur, and there would be no
change in use or increase in office space. The EIR concluded that this alternative would
avoid the Cultural and historic resource and hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the
proposed project. No impacts to transportation and traffic would occur. The No Project
Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project objectives.
Feasibility of the No Project Alternative: The City Council finds that this alternative is
infeasible in that it meets none of the project objectives. Specifically, it does not support
the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and associated rental income
of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly
environment, or meeting current building standards. For all of the foregoing reasons, and
for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is
infeasible and is hereby rejected.
Building Preservation Alternative
The Building Preservation Alternative assumes that the existing building is retrofitted rather
than demolished and no new building is constructed. This alternative was considered and
analyzed for the possibility that maintaining and improving the existing building could
potentially reduce the proposed project's significant impacts.
In order to bring the existing building up to current codes, several improvements would be
necessary, while others would not be feasible due to site constraints. For example, 15
additional parking spaces would be needed to meet the City's code; however, the site
cannot accommodate additional parking spaces within its current limits. Some of the
improvements to the existing building that would be necessary under this alternative include
seismic retrofitting, restroom upgrades, addition of an elevator, replacement of the interior
stairway, lead-based paint and asbestos removal, mechanical and electrical system upgrades,
and installation of interior fire safety sprinklers and building insulation. In order to maximize
preservation of the building's historic features and reduce impacts to Cultural and historic
resources, all retrofitting activities would need to reflect consideration of the historic
character and quality of the building, including preservation of historic materials and visual
compatibility of improvements.
The Building Preservation Alternative would meet some of the project objectives by achieving
compliance with many code requirements. However, it would not be feasible to comply with all
code requirements. This alternative would not meet the project objectives of increasing
the usable square footage onsite, reducing the need for offsite parking, or improving the bicycle
and pedestrian environment.
Because this alternative does not propose to demolish the existing historic building, the
Building Preservation Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on the
historic resource relative to the proposed project. However, because this alternative would
require extensive building repairs and retrofitting, the building's historic character may be
diminished and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
150616 jb 0131441 23
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
· This alternative does not propose demolition or a subterranean parking lot, both of which
would result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the proposed project.
The project would implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-8 to reduce all hazards
and hazardous materials impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Building Preservation
Alternative would further reduce these impacts and eliminate the need for implementation
of Mitigation Measures HAZ-6 through HAZ-8. The Building Preservation Alternative would
result in similar impacts to traffic and transportation as the proposed project but, unlike the
proposed project, this alternative would not provide for adequate onsite parking. The EIR
concluded that the Building Preservation Alternative is Environmentally Superior to the
proposed project because it avoids or reduces some of the project's significant effects.
Feasibility of the Building Preservation Alternative: The City Council finds that this
alternative is infeasible for the reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts
compared to the proposed project. The Building Preservation Alternative results in the same
significant and unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would not provide the
potential project benefit of reducing the demand for off-site parking. Further this alternative
would not support the project objectives of increasing the usable square footage and
associated rental income of the site, enhancing the street frontage to create a pedestrian
and bike-friendlyenvironment.
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council
determines that the Building Preservation Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
PTOD Alternative
The PTOD Alternative assumes requires that the project site would be rezoned as part of the
California Avenue PTOD Combining District, which allows for higher density residential uses
within walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The project site would be
redeveloped as a mixed-use development with both multifamily residential and commercial
uses. This alternative was considered and analyzed as an alternative that would meet the stated
objective of generating increased rental income and supporting the vision of the City's Draft
California Avenue Area Concept Plan, including the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development
overlay and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The EIR concluded that the PTOD Alternative meets most of the project objectives by
redeveloping the site with a building that meets current standards and increasing the usable
square footage of the site. This alternative would also meet the objectives related to
pedestrian and bicycle friendly features and the provision of adequate onsite parking.
Under the PTOD Alternative, the impacts to Cultural and historic resources, hazardous
materials, and traffic would be generally the same as under the proposed project. Impacts to
the historic resource onsite would remain significant and unavoidable, and impacts related
to traffic and hazardous materials would remain less than significant or significant but mitigable.
Feasibility of Alternative C: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible for the
reasons that it does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project.
The PTOD Alternative results in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the
150616 jb 0131441 24
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
proposed project and would require the same mitigation measures as would be required
under the proposed project.
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council
determines that the PTOD Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
X. GROWTH INDUCEMENT FINDINGS
As required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d), an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed
project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing,
either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the
characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that
could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to
growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the
establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional
growth. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can ·be demonstrated
that the potential growth would directly or indirectly have a significant effect on the
environment.
Residential development can induce growth by increasing the local population, which may lead
to increased commercial activity, which may increase the local supply of jobs. Extension of
public infrastructure or services can accommodate growth by removing constraints to
development. A growth-inducing project directly or indirectly:
• Fosters economic or population growth or additional housing;
• Removes obstacles to growth;
• Taxes community services or facilities to such an extent that new services or facilities
would be necessary; or
• Encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects.
The 2555 Park Boulevard project would provide additional office space in the City by increasing
the usable office space by approximately 12,469 square feet. This increase in office space
would accommodate additional employees and could indirectly induce a small amount of
growth because some employees would seek housing and purchase foods and services in the
area.
Finding: The 2555 Park Boulevard project would not induce substantial growth in the
project area or region.
Explanation: The potential for growth inducement due to the increase in office space is
not considered substantial. The increase in employment opportunities the
project would provide would be insufficient to trigger noticeable changes in the
housing market or demand for local goods and services. In addition,
construction of the proposed project would be temporary and these short-term
150616 jb 0131441 25
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
construction jobs are anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part,
reside in the surrounding areas.
XI. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FINDINGS
The City Council finds that the methodology used in the EIR to determine cumulative impacts
complies with CEQA in that it assumed growth in accordance with the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan as well as considering other known development projects in the region,
and it provides an analysis of potential for the 2555 Park Boulevard project to contribute to
cumulative impacts in the project area.
Finding: The City Council finds that the project would result in a less than considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts in the project area.
Cultural and Historic Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may
jeopardize the eligibility of one or more cultural resources eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Other than the existing building onsite, the project would not
impact other listed buildings or buildings with the potential to be listed in the project
vicinity. Other examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural style are in the
vicinity of the project. While it is not anticipated that a past, present, or reasonably
foreseeable project would adversely impact these buildings, the City's development
history suggests that other buildings constructed in the early 1960s may be proposed
for alteration or demolition. Many of these buildings have already been altered and
may not be eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. The 2555 Park Boulevard
project would not increase the likelihood of other projects to be proposed that
would affect historic resources. As required for the 2555 Park Boulevard project and
may be required during the City's review of other projects with the potential to
adversely affect historic resources, requirements to record historic features and
information would preserve the knowledge of historic structures in the area.
The proposed project's contribution to potentially ongoing impacts to cultural
and historic resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects in the vicinity of the proposed project have the potential to result in similar
impacts related to hazardous materials as the proposed project, including the
presence of contaminated groundwater and hazardous materials that could be
released during demolition and remodeling. Other projects in the vicinity could also
use hazardous materials. However, the majority of hazardous materials issues
related to contaminated groundwater or hazardous building materials are site-
specific. Releases of trichloroethylene (TCE) from groundwater or air contaminants
from demolished buildings would not result in a local or regional increase in air
contaminants that could lead to health hazards. The established land use
designations in the project vicinity do not indicate that use, transport, or exposure of
hazardous materials would increase as the planning area is developed. The project
would not contribute to cumulative increases in impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials.
150616 jb 0131441 26
DocuSign Envelope 10: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Transportation and Traffic: In the cumulative condition, it is expected that some
local roadways and intersections in the project vicinity would operate at
unacceptable levels of service. However, addition of traffic generated by the 2555
Park Boulevard project would not significantly increase the average delay or
volume/capacity ratios for any intersection. The proposed project's contribution
to the cumulative traffic scenario is considered less than cumulatively
considerable.
Explanation: The potential impacts of project activities are limited to site specific
conditions and would not result in any cumulatively considerable contributions
to cumulative impacts in the project vicinity or region.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The 2555 Park Boulevard EIR concluded that even with implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures and project alternatives, the project will cause the following
significant unavoidable impact:
Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the existing building at 2555 Park Boulevard, which is
considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, would cause
a significant impact to a historic resource and would eliminate an example of a
major period of California history.
The City of Palo Alto has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures with
respect to this impact, which lessens the impact but does not entirely avoid or reduce it
below a level of significance, as discussed in Section VIII of these Findings.
The environmentally superior alternative (Building Preservation Alternative) would lessen
some impacts of the proposed project, but would not avoid the Significant and
Unavoidable impact of the project. Further, as described above in Section IX, the
environmentally superior alternative is not feasible.
The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to
the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation
measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance.
CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of such projects where not all adverse impacts
can be fully lessened or avoided. Before such a project can be approved, the public agency
must consider and adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §§15043 and 15093. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15093(b) requires that
when a public agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant and
unavoidable impacts, the agency must "state in writing the reasons to support its action
based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record." The agency's statement of
overriding considerations must explain and justify the agency's conclusion to approve
such a project, setting forth the proposed project's general social, economic, policy or
other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the
project.
150616 jb 0131441 27
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
The following statement identifies why, in the City Council's judgment, the benefits of
the project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these
reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude
that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by
its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence
supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are
incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents included in the Record of
Proceedings.
The City Council finds that the significant and unavoidable impact previously identified
and briefly explained above is acceptable because mitigation measures have been required
to reduce this impact to the extent feasible, and on balancing the benefits to be realized by
approval of the proposed project against the remaining environmental risks, the following
economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the impacts and support approval of
the proposed project.
Accordingly the City Council recognizes that a significant and unavoidable impact would
result from implementation of the proposed project. Having (1) adopted all feasible
mitigation measures; (2) rejected the alternatives to the project as infeasible, as discussed
above; (3) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts; and (4) balanced the benefits of
the proposed project against the significant and unavoidable effect, the City Council finds
that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effect for the reasons
stated below.
The City Council finds that the 2555 Park Boulevard project meets the following stated
project objectives -which have substantial social, economic, policy and other public
benefits -justifying its approval and implementation, notwithstanding the fact that not all
environmental impacts were fully reduced below a level of significance:
Implementation of the 2555 Park Boulevard project will provide for the following:
• Development of a new office building on the site that supports related planning
initiatives such as the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development overlay and Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
+ Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with a
modern building that meets current standards for structural design.
• Replacement of the existing office building at the 2555 Park Boulevard site with an
energy and water efficient office building.
• Doubling the usable square footage of a transit-accessible site by increasing the
building height to three stories and providing parking at grade and underground.
150616 jb 0131441 28
Docu'Sign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
• Creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly street frontage with wide sidewalks
and amenities.
• Increasing onsite parking to reduce off-site parking demands associated with the
office use at the site.
Balancing Competing Goals
The City Council further finds that it is necessary to balance competing goals in approving the
2555 Park Boulevard project and the environmental documentation for the project. Not
every environmental concern has been fully satisfied due to infeasibility and there is a need
to satisfy competing concerns to some extent. The City Council has chosen to accept the
signifiCant and unavoidable environmental impact resulting from the 2555 Park Boulevard
project because complete avoidance or reduction of the impact to a less than significant
level is infeasible and not approving the project would unduly compromise other important
economic, social, or other goal. The City Council finds and determines that the 2555 Park
Boulevard project, the supporting environmental documentation, and the evidence in the
administrative record as a whole provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and
that the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, land-use and other benefits to be obtained
by the project outweigh any remaining environmental and related potential significant
impacts of the project.
XIII. CONCLUSION
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above,
as implemented through the MMP, will eliminate or reduce to a less than significant level
most adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, except for the significant
and unavoidable impact listed in Section XII above.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
150616 jb 0131441 29
DocuSign Envelope ID: FFDBFE10-0380-4BDA-AODA-FABDEAOC82DA
Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMP provide an adequate basis
for approval ofthe 2555 Park Boulevard project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 1, 2015
AYES: BERMAN, BURT, FILSETH, KNISS, SCHARFF, WOLBACH
NOES: HOLMAN, SCHMID
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: DUBOIS
ATTEST:
~iNC==:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
150616 jb 0131441
AP~ rLL
Mayor
Q DocuSig.ned by: :!J· .. ~t.rl'
3QE7298FB2064QB
City Manager
~DocuSigned by:
~~F~~
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
30
Docu~
iii HCUUP
Certificate of Completion
Envelope Number: FFDBFE1 003804BDAAODAFABDEAOC82DA Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign this document: RESO 9516 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25
· Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 30
Certificate Pages: 5
AutoNav: Enabled
Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled
Record Tracking
Status: Original
6/16/2015 3:08:48 PM PT
Signer Events
Cara Silver
cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 6/16/2015 3:24:57 PM PT
I D: ce67d 11 f-098b-4245-af62-e19d50fc1 a4e
Hillary Gitelman
Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAito.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 6/16/2015 3:37:31 PM PT
ID: c13adb8e-7be2-46ce-9ebd-07967fe1 ad82
James Keene
james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 4/14/2015 5:40:07 PM PT
ID: 44fe333a-6a81-4cb7-b7d4-925473ac82e3
In Person Signer Events
Editor Delivery Events
Agent Delivery Events
Intermediary Delivery Events
Signatures: 3
Initials: 0
Holder: Kim Lunt
kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org
Signature
rc;~Sisi1:r
Lc2cEDD84ABC3429 ...
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
laOocuSigned by:
~~F~~
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Signature
Status
Status
Status
Envelope Originator:
Kim Lunt
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Location: DocuSign
Timestamp
Sent: 6/16/2015 3:12:27 PM PT
Viewed: 6/16/2015 3:24:57 PM PT
Signed: 6/16/2015 3:25:39 PM PT
Sent: 6/16/2015 3:25:40 PM PT
Viewed: 6/16/2015 3:37:31 PM PT
Signed: 6/16/2015 3:37:49 PM PT
Sent: 6/16/2015 3:37:51 PM PT
Viewed: 6/17/2015 5:09:07 PM PT
Signed: 6/17/2015 5:09:42 PM PT
Timestamp
Timestamp
Timestamp
Timestamp