HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 101231
0160117_20230823_ay16
Resolution No. 10123
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the 200 Portage Townhome Project,
Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Making
Findings of Overriding Consideration, All Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act
RECITALS
A.On November 17, 2020, SI 45, LLC (“Applicant”) submitted a preliminary application
pursuant to SB 330 to redevelop an approximately 4.65-acre site at 200 Portage Avenue
with 85 townhomes.
B.On April 8, 2021, Applicant submitted applications for Major Architectural Review and
a Tentative Map to redevelop the 200 Portage Avenue site with 91 townhomes (the
“200 Portage Project”).
C.At the conclusion of a City Council ad hoc committee process and City Council he aring
pre-screening on August 1, 2022, SI 45, LLC applied in the Fall of 2022 to the City for
approval of (1) a Development Agreement, (2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment, (3)
Planned Community Zoning Ordinances, (4) Tentative Map(s), and (5) Major
Architectural Review (the “Development Agreement Project” or “Project”) for the 14.65
acre property at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash
Street, and 278 Lambert Avenue (the “Project Site”).
D.Approval of the Development Agreement Project would constitute a project under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related
state and local implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”).
E.The City is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has
the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Development Agreement
Project.
F.The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to
provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and
constructing the 200 Portage Townhome Project. The potential environmental
consequences of approving and constructing the Development Agreement Project
were analyzed in the EIR as Project Alternative No. 3.
G.The City circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for public review
from September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022, during which time the City’s
Planning and Transportation Commission held two public hearings on October 12, 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
2
0160117_20230823_ay16
and October 26, 2022 to receive comments on the Draft EIR.
H.The City considered the comments received during the Draft EIR public review period
and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”). The Final
Environmental Impact Report was published on May 15, 2023. A Revised Final EIR was
subsequently released on June 2, 2023 which included a letter from the applicant and
associated responses that were inadvertently omitted from the Final EIR. The Revised
Final Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the Draft EIR, together with the
Revised Final Responses to Comment published on June 2, 2023 (collectively, all of said
documents are referred to herein as the “EIR”).
I.The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Development Agreement
Project.
J.CEQA requires that in connection with approval of a project for which an environmental
impact report has been prepared that identifies one or more significant environmental
effects of the project, the decision-making body of a public agency make certain findings
regarding those effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Certification and General Findings
The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following
findings to comply with the requirements of CEQA, including Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093
of the CEQA Guidelines, based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. All
statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including
the statements set forth in this paragraph and in the recitals above.
1. The City Council was presented with, and has independently reviewed and analyzed, the
EIR and other information in the record, and has considered the information contained
therein prior to acting upon and approving the Project. The City Council bases the
findings stated below on such review.
2.The EIR provides an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the Project. The City
Council has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented during
consideration of the Project and the EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a
significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth herein, the
City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code Sections 21081,
21081.5, and 21082.2.
3.The City Council agrees with the characterization of the EIR with respect to all impacts
initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
3
0160117_20230823_ay16
described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the EIR. This finding
does not apply to impacts identified as significant or potentially significant that are
reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures included in the EIR. The
disposition of each of those impacts and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce
them are addressed specifically in the findings below.
4.Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project
will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
described below, which is the responsibility of the City to enforce.
5.The EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to
foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice, in
accordance with CEQA.
6.The Revised Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. The
Final EIR also contains corrections and clarifications to the text and analysis of the Draft
EIR where warranted. Factual corrections and minor changes added to the Draft EIR
have been made to merely clarify, amplify, and/or make insignificant modifications to
the information provided in the Draft EIR. The City Council does hereby find that such
changes and additional information are not significant new information under CEQA
because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any of the
following would result from approval and implementation of the Project: (i) any new
significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact
(not already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR) would result from the project or
from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, (ii) any feasible mitigation
measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a
significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be
implemented, (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in
the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has
been proposed that would not be implemented, or (iv) the Draft EIR was fundamentally
and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and
comment were precluded. The City Council does find and determine that recirculation
of the Final EIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required
under the provisions of CEQA.
7.The City Council finds and certifies that the EIR has been prepared and completed in
compliance with CEQA and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and
analysis.
8.The City Council makes findings in this resolution with respect to significant effects on
the environment of the Project, as identified in the EIR, with the understanding that all
of the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative
record supporting the EIR, which full administrative record should be consulted for the
full details supporting these findings.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
4
0160117_20230823_ay16
SECTION 2. Significant Impacts Reduced to Less than Significant.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City
Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental
impacts from approval and implementation of the Project and the means for mitigating those
impacts.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact
contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and
state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in
the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR
that support the EIR's determinations regarding significant project impacts and mitigation
measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in
the record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the
analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings
the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation
measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically
and expressly modified by these findings.
The EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental impacts that
the Project will cause or to which the Project would contribute. The following significant effects
can be fully addressed and reduced to less than significant through the adoption and
implementation of standard project requirements incorporated as part of the Project and
feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with the standard project requirements and
mitigation measures to reduce them to less than significant, are listed below as referenced in
the EIR.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds. The project may result in impacts to protected
nesting bird species.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section
4.9.3 of the EIR.
b)Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be
implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of
these findings:
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
5
0160117_20230823_ay16
MM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any
other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be
prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible.
If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist,
as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to
determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or
adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site
shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to
nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the
reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys
shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and
structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer
(typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet
for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be
allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is
no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).
No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist
has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest.
Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between
August 31 and February 1.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
identified in the EIR. The only wildlife that is anticipated to be present within the project
area is wildlife associated with the built urban environment such as rodents, other small
animals, and native and migratory birds. These small animals are not restricted by the
type of developments in the project area. Tree removal activities have the potential to
disturb resident and migratory birds resulting in a short-term reduction in potential
nesting and foraging habitat as well as directly destroying active nests if present;
however, it is anticipated that resident and migratory bird species would resume nesting
and foraging behavior once the construction is complete, and would utilize existing
nearby nesting and foraging habitat during construction. With implementation of MM
BIO-1 to protect active nests, if present, the project would have a less than significant
impact on these migratory birds and their movements in the area.
d)Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-3. The project is located on a list of hazardous waste generating site pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result could create a hazard to the public or the
environment from construction activities could expose the public and environment to
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
6
0160117_20230823_ay16
contaminated groundwater and soils. This impact would be less than significant with
incorporation of mitigation.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section
4.5.2 of the EIR for the 200 Portage Project and 6.3.2 as it relates to the Project.
b)Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be
implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of
these findings.
MM HAZ-1 Regulatory Agency Notification and Approval. Prior to the issuance of
deconstruction, demolition, grading, building, or other permits necessary for beginning
of construction or development, the project applicant shall contact an appropriate
oversight agency such as the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
(SCCDEH), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), to discuss the proposed
redevelopment project, the proposed residential land use, and the prior environmental
investigations, and determine the lead agency for assessment and/or remediation at the
project site. The project applicant shall provide the oversight agency with the proposed
site use plans regarding the conversion of commercial land use to residential land use,
copies of the 2020 and 2021 PES investigative reports, and discuss the onsite presence
of groundwater impacted by VOCs at the project site as well as any concerns regarding
potentially impacted soils or soil vapor.
The oversight agency may require the project applicant to conduct additional
investigation/studies, including, but not limited to, soil investigation, soil vapor surveys,
and/or groundwater investigations to delineate the extent of contaminated soil, soil
vapor, and groundwater. The oversight agency may require approval of the final Site
Management Plan (SMP) required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, below, prior to
issuance of any required project permits. The project applicant shall comply with the
oversight requirements, conduct further investigations as required, and submit the
results to the oversight agency.
The oversight agency’s (SCCDEH, SFBRWQCB, or DTSC) agency approval documents shall
be delivered to and reviewed by the project applicant. The project applicant shall
furnish copies of the documents, including the final Site Management Plan or equivalent
document required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, to the City Planning Department prior
to issuance of grading permits.
If groundwater wells or soil vapor monitoring probes are identified during demolition,
subsurface demolition, or construction at the project site, they will be abandoned,
protected in place, or relocated per Santa Clara Valley Water District specifications.
Abandonment activities will be documented in a letter report submitted to Santa Clara
Valley Water District within 60 days of the completion of abandonment activities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
7
0160117_20230823_ay16
MM HAZ-2 Site Management Plan for Impacted Soils, Soil Vapor and/or Groundwater.
The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California
Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Soil
Management Plan (SMP) prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will
be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils, soil vapor,
groundwater, or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers
and offsite receptors during construction. The plan shall establish remedial measures
and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of
future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the project
site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the
installation of BMPs
Soil sampling procedures for imported fill material (in accordance with DTSC’s
2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material)
Proper disposal procedures for contaminated materials
Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight notifications
A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that
addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction
activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and
health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to
hazardous materials during construction.
The City of Palo Alto and/or the oversight agency (SCCDEH, DTSC, or RWQCB) will review
and approve the SMP for impacted soils, soil vapor, and groundwater prior to issuance of
any permits necessary for the beginning of construction. The project applicant will review
and implement the SMP prior to and during demolition and grading (construction).
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
identified in the EIR. Mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce the potential
for construction workers and nearby residents to be exposed to contaminants. By
contacting SCDEH closure prior to the issuance of any permits necessary for the
beginning of construction or development, the implementation of Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 would ensure that the proper regulatory oversight is applied to project approval
and proper cleanup activities occur throughout the development process.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would ensure that planning for the procedures to be
implemented throughout work with impacted soils, soil vapor, or groundwater is
conducted prior to approval of permits to begin construction from City or other
agencies. Adherence to an approved SMP developed under regulatory oversight would
reduce potential impacts relating to disturbance and removal of potentially
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
8
0160117_20230823_ay16
contaminated soils and exposure to soil vapor or groundwater. Further, adherence to
the SMP would reduce potential impacts with regard to fugitive dust and VOCs
generated during ground disturbance that could pose a temporary risk to human health
due to inhalation.
With implementation of these mitigation measures and adherence to existing regulatory
requirements for development of the project site, impacts to the public and the
environment from on-site contamination would be less than significant. Therefore, the
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 specified above would
reduce all potential impacts to less than significant.
Noise and Vibrations
Impact N-2. Excessive Groundborne Vibrations. Construction activities associated with
implementation of the Project would intermittently generate groundborne vibration within and
adjacent to the project site. Institutional land uses with sensitive daytime activities could be
exposed to vibration levels exceeding FTA guidelines. Additionally, vibration could exceed
Caltrans standards for potential damage to historical buildings due to the proximity of
construction equipment with vibration levels similar to a large dozer. This impact would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section
4.7.2 of the EIR for the 200 Portage Project and 6.3.2 as it relates to the Project.
b)Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be
implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of
these findings.
MM N-1 Vibration Reduction. The applicant shall retrofit the remaining historical building
at 200 Portage/340 Portage to withstand construction vibration up to 0.4 in/sec PPV or
higher (the Caltrans threshold for buildings in good repair) prior to demolition or
construction activities. The structure’s ability to accommodate vibration at the specific
level shall be verified by a qualified engineer
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
identified in the EIR. With implementation of MM N-1, the portion of the historic
cannery building to remain would be retrofitted prior to demolition or other
construction activities to withstand the vibrations from these adjacent activities. A
qualified engineer shall verify that the retrofitted building will accommodate the
anticipated vibrations from construction and demolition activities prior to commencing
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
9
0160117_20230823_ay16
with that work. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure N-1 specified above would reduce all potential
impacts to less than significant.
Transportation
Impact T-1. Conflict with Plan, Ordinance, Policy – Circulation. The proposed project would not
conflict with applicable policies addressing transit, roadway, or pedestrian facilities. However, an
enhanced bikeway is planned between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard along the alignment
of Portage Avenue and traversing the project site in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan and Countywide Trails Plan. While the 200 Portage Project would conflict
with these adopted plans addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, the Development Agreement Project would not, because it incorporates
an enhanced bikeway across the Project Site.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section
4.8.2 of the Draft EIR as it relates to the 200 Portage Project and Section 6.3.2 as it
relates to the Project.
b)Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is necessary because the Development Agreement
Project does not conflict with a circulation plan, ordinance, or policy.
Archeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2: The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
a) Potential Impact. The impacts identified above are described and discussed in Section
4.2.2 of the EIR for the 200 Portage Project and 6.3.2 as it relates to the Project.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be
implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of
these findings.
MM CR-3 Worker Environmental Awareness. Prior to commencement of any project-
related construction activities, a qualified Archeologist shall provide a worker
environmental awareness training to all site personnel. The training shall discuss the
appearance of resources that may be encountered during construction as well as the
procedures and notification process in the event of discovery.
MM CR-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Archeological Resources. In the event that
archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth-disturbing
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
10
0160117_20230823_ay16
work near the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology (NPS 1983) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the
discovery proves to be significant under CEQA (Section 15064.5f; PRC 21082), additional
work, such as preservation in place or archaeological data recovery, shall occur as
recommended by the archeologist in coordination with City staff and if applicable,
descendants and/or stakeholder groups. Once the resource has been properly treated
or protected, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be
retained to monitor mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
identified in the EIR. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures CR-3 and CR-4 would reduce
impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources to a less than significant level
by requiring education for on-site workers and steps to be taken in the event of an
unanticipated discovery to avoid or, if avoidance is infeasible, to appropriately treat the
resource. For these reasons, the project would have a less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-4 specified above would reduce
all potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact CUL-4: The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal
cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or substantial adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that
is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1.
a) Potential Impact. The impacts identified above are described and discussed in Section
4.2.2 of the EIR for the 200 Portage Project and 6.3.2 as it relates to the Project.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be
implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of
these findings.
MM CR-5 Suspension of Work Around Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that
cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the
Project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily
suspended or redirected until an archaeologist and culturally affiliated Native American
representative have evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the City, in
consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
11
0160117_20230823_ay16
cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared
and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local
Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if
avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment
of the resource in coordination with the culturally affiliated local Native American tribal
representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate
mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the
cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the
resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
identified in the EIR. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR-5 would ensure that any
unanticipated discoveries of tribal cultural resources are avoided or, where avoidance is
infeasible, appropriately treated in coordination with the culturally affiliated local Native
American tribal representative. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure
CR-5 impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant
level. For these reasons, the project would have a less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure CR-5 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
SECTION 3. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City
Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental
impacts from approval and implementation of the Project and the means for mitigating those
impacts.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact
contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and
state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in
the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR
that support the EIR's determinations regarding significant project impacts and mitigation
measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in
the record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the
analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings
the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation
measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically
and expressly modified by these findings.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
12
0160117_20230823_ay16
The Draft EIR and the Revised Final EIR documented that the Project would result in significant
and unavoidable impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated through the adoption and
implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with mitigation
measures to mitigate them to the extent feasible, are listed below as referenced in the EIR.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
a) Potential Impact. The impacts identified above are described and discussed in Section
4.2.2 of the EIR for the 200 Portage Project and 6.3.2 as it relates to the Project.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be
implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of
these findings.
MM CR-1 Building Recordation. Impacts resulting from the partial demolition of the
warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue, also known as 340 Portage Avenue, shall be
minimized through archival documentation of as-built and as-found condition. Prior to
issuance of demolition permits, the lead agency shall ensure that documentation of the
buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed that follows the general
guidelines of Historic American Building Survey (HABS)- Level III documentation. The
documentation shall include high resolution digital photographic recordation, a historic
narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be
completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural
History. The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material
to repositories that will make it available for current and future generations. Archival
copies of the documentation also would be submitted to the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Public Library, where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this
mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the City of Palo Alto.
MM CR-2. Interpretive Display. Impacts resulting from the partial demolition of the
warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue, also known as 340 Portage Avenue, shall be
minimized through the installation of a high-quality, on-site interpretive display in a
publicly-accessible location, preferably near or within a portion of the retained
warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue at the applicant’s expense. The display could
focus on the property’s history, particularly the agricultural past of Santa Clara County
and the canning operations of Bayside Canning Company. The interpretive display should
be prepared by a professional exhibit designer and historian; historic information
contained in Page & Turnbull’s HRE can serve as the basis for the interpretive display. The
goal of the interpretive display would be to educate the public about the property’s
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
13
0160117_20230823_ay16
historic themes and associations within broader cultural contexts. The content of the
display shall be approved by the Director of Planning & Development Services or
designee.
(c)Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact by documenting the building materials. The mitigation
measures also provide the opportunity to display an interpretation of the site’s history.
However, because of the implementation of the project requires the partial demolition
of the building, these measures would not fully mitigate this Impact to a less-than-
significant level.
(d)Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available to
mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would lessen the Project's impacts on the described historical
resource through documentation and providing an interpretive archival of the building’s
materials as well as through providing an interpretive display on-site to convey the
history of the site to the public. However, the implementation of the Project requires
demolition that materially alters the historic resource and these mitigation measures
would not result in reversing the material alteration of the resource. Therefore, the
Project would still result in a significant impact to a historic resource.
(e)Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits
of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
SECTION 4. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. Public Resources Code section 21002
prohibits a public agency from approving a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project. When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects
that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to approving the project as
mitigated, first determine whether there are any project alternatives that are feasible and that
would substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant impacts. Under CEQA, "feasibility”
includes "desirability" to the extent that it is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, and an alternative may be deemed
by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to adequately promote the project applicant's
and/or the lead agency's primary underlying goals and objectives for the project. Thus, a lead
agency may reject an alternative, even if it would avoid or substantially lessen one or more
significant environmental effects of the project, if it finds that the alternative's failure to
adequately achieve the objectives for the project, or other specific and identifiable
considerations, make the alternative infeasible.
The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
14
0160117_20230823_ay16
has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives. As described below, the City Council
has decided to approve the Project, also known as Alternative 3, Development Agreement
Alternative, as described in Chapter 6 of the EIR, and to reject the 200 Portage Project and the
remainder of the alternatives, as summarized below.
Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR set forth the Project applicant's objectives for the Project. That list is
incorporated herein by reference. In light of the applicant's objectives for the Project, and given
that the Project is expected to result in certain significant environmental effects even after the
implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified above, the City hereby makes
the following findings with respect to whether one or more of the alternatives evaluated in the
Draft EIR could feasibly accomplish most of the goals and objectives for the Project and
substantially lessen or avoid one or more of its potentially significant effects.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that the 91 townhome units proposed at the 200 Portage
Avenue project site would not be constructed. The existing buildings and uses on the site would remain under this alternative and uses would be governed by the City’s non-conforming use
regulations. The No Project Alternative is discussed in Section 6.1 of the Draft EIR. The No
Project Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the Project
objectives, as explained in Section 6.4 of the Draft EIR. This Alternative would not provide any
housing to help the city meet its housing supply and affordability goals.
Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Building
Alternative 2, Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Building is designed to align with Council’s
preferred plan for the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. It includes retention of the
eligible historical resource at 200 Portage (also known as 340 Portage), which would be
increased in height to three stories, and the interior of the building would be developed with
281 residential units. An additional residential townhome building up to 35 feet in height with
12 units would be constructed in the current parking area east of the 200-404 Portage building.
Overall, this alternative assumes up to 293 residential units across the project site. The existing
commercial space in the 200 Portage building would be reduced and only 7,400 square feet of
commercial space would remain. The building at 3040 Park Boulevard and the auto uses east of
Matadero Creek would not be demolished and would remain. Alternative 2, Adaptive Reuse of
Eligible Historic Building, is hereby rejected as infeasible due to the cost and impractical nature
of conversion, which ultimately does not reduce a significant and unavoidable impact to a less
than significant level.
More specifically, the applicant has stated that the market return for the commercial
component of the site (which would mostly be discontinued under Alternative 2) would be vital
to the applicant’s construction of the housing component.
Moreover, the width of the building (as viewed from East/West) is 230 feet, meaning that much
of the interior of the floor area on the building does not front a façade that can provide
appropriate access to light and air in conformance with the building and fire code. It is
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
15
0160117_20230823_ay16
anticipated that major modifications to the building to create new openings/corridors to
provide light to the interior portion of the building; alternatively, a large portion of the interior
floor area would be unusable for residential purposes.
In addition, the majority of the interior structure would need to be removed and major building
systems and supports relocated to accommodate a residential layout. This would be costly and
would remove interior character defining elements of the historic structure. Alternative 2
would also likely require completely new plumbing and electrical to accommodate the
significant increase in kitchens and bathrooms for the new residences. To support additional
floors, further structural analysis would be needed and additional substructure within the
existing structure would likely be required to support the additional weight and to support the
existing walls while the existing roof, floor systems, etc. would be rebuilt to accommodate the
new addition. The applicant has stated that all of these modifications would be unreasonably
costly.
The property owner has indicated that the costs associated with Alternative 2 would not
provide a reasonable market return for the investment that would be required and under no
circumstance would they pursue alternative 2. Therefore, although theoretically it would result
in additional housing units, it is unlikely that Alternative 2, if selected, would ultimately be
constructed such that it would contribute to the City’s housing supply and affordability goals.
Finally, although Alternative 2 was identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the
EIR, for the reasons stated above with respect to required modifications to support residential
use, it is still anticipated to result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic
resource.
200 Portage Townhome Project
Referred to in the EIR as the “proposed project,” the 200 Portage Project would not achieve the
City’s goal of obtaining a site for a future park and affordable housing development in the North
Ventura neighborhood and would not reduce a significant impact to less than significant level. It
also does not achieve the City’s goal of providing additional opportunities to convey historic
aspects of the site to the public by creating a small public area outside the cannery or providing
views of the monitor roof from the interior of the building. Therefore, while the 200 Portage
Project is feasible and would achieve the applicant’s project objectives, it is less desirable when
compared to the Project (Alternative 3) because it does not provide the desired public
park/open space on the site, provides fewer overall potential for housing units (when taking
into account the land and funds set aside for the future affordable housing project) and
because the proposed development agreement provides an opportunity to provide some of the
below market rate units at a deeper level of affordability to assist the City in meeting its
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Goals for lower income levels. The 200 Portage Townhome
Project also would not reduce environmental impacts compared to the Project.
SECTION 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, this City Council adopts and makes the
following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
16
0160117_20230823_ay16
unavoidable impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social
and other benefits of the Project.
The City finds that: (i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to
less than- significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described in the Revised
Final EIR and approved and adopted by these Findings; (ii) the City's approval of the Project will
result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the
incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are no other
feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or
avoid the remaining significant environmental effects.
The significant effects that have not been mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are
therefore considered significant and unavoidable are identified in Section 4 herein. Despite
these potentially significant impacts, it is the City's considered judgment that the benefits
offered by the Project outweigh the potentially adverse effects of these significant impacts. The
substantial evidence supporting the following described benefits of the Project can be found in
the preceding findings and in the record of proceedings.
The benefits of the Project which the City Council finds serve as overriding considerations"
justifying its approval include the following:
(1)The site is in an area that is identified in the City’s Housing Element for increased
housing production with a realistic capacity of 134 units. The proposed project provides
74 market rate units and provides lands and a contribution of funds to support a future
affordable housing project on the City/BMR parcel that is anticipated to include 75 units
for a total of 149 units. Based on recent and current housing demand, the preservation
and expansion of this opportunity site is necessary for the City to meet its current
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals. Moreover, it provides an opportunity
for the City to pursue options that would provide a large number of units at a deep level
of affordability to better meet its RHNA allocation goals for low and very low-income
housing units which are often difficult to achieve. While the loss of the historic structure
would result in a negative impact on the environment, this loss is outweighed by the
benefit of the needed increase in the City’s housing stock.
(2)The project would provide a 2.25-acre park adjacent Matadero Creek, consistent with
the community’s desire for open space adjacent the creek, as was expressed through
the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan planning process. The dedication of this
area for the purposes of a public park/open space is also consistent with the Parks
Master Plan, which seeks to improve the City’s Park-to-resident ratio and to seek to
acquire new public park areas that are at least 2-acres or greater. This park is more than
three times larger than the amount of parkland that would normally be provided to the
City for a project of this size.
(3)The project would provide a public benefit payment of at least $5 million for
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
17
0160117_20230823_ay16
development of a park and/or below-market-rate housing. This payment is in addition
to normally assessed development impact fees. In total, the project will provide 3.25
acres of land and the payment of approximately $ 6,303,115.71 ($5 million + impact
fees) to the City as well an estimated $420,000 in value of on-site public art.
(4)Redevelopment of the site will include a mix of uses across the project site that would
include market rate housing, future affordable housing, office and R&D uses, and a retail
or community room component. This mix of uses contributes to the complete
neighborhood vision for the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan planning area.
SECTION 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(a)CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project
that it has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. An MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption
by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of these findings to ensure
compliance with standard project requirements incorporated as part of the
project and mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by
Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and
anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures
recommended in the Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review
during the compliance period.
(b)The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares
that the adoption of the MMRP will ensure enforcement and continued
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and set
forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the
environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
18
0160117_20230823_ay16
SECTION 7. Location and Custodian of Records. The documents and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council based the foregoing findings and
approval of the Project are located at the Department of Planning and Community
Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The official custodian of the record is
the Planning Director at the same address.
INTRODUCED: September 12, 2023
PASSED: September 12, 2023
AYES: BURT, KOU, LAUING, LYTHCOTT-HAIMS, STONE, TANAKA, VEENKER
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
0160118_20230824_ay16
Exhibit A:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 1
PROJECT NAME 3200 Park Development Agreement APPLICATION
NUMBER
22PLN-00287; 22PLN-
00288
APPROVED BY City of Palo Alto, Planning and
Development Services
DATE 8/24/2023
APPLICANT/OWNER Sobrato Organization
599 Castro Street, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94041
(650)876-7010
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project identifies
the mitigation measures that must be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project
and its alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add
Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for
assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed
development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code:
... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the
project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects
on the environment.
Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs
and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project
implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an EIR.
The following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the
“Development Agreement Alternative” identified as Alternative No. 3 in the EIR. The mitigation
monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that are included as conditions of approval for the
project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has
been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any other
site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be
prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if
feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction
nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status
of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer
area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that
direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of
active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA
and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to
scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active
nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for
passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around
such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a
qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings
have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities
shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird
surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and
February 1.
Property owner or
its designee
Within 14 days
prior to the
initiation of
construction
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CR-1 Building Recordation. Impacts resulting from the partial demolition of the
warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue, also known as 340 Portage Avenue, shall
be minimized through archival documentation of as-built and as-found condition.
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the lead agency shall ensure that
documentation of the buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed that follows the general guidelines of Historic American Building Survey (HABS)- Level
Property owner or
its designee in
coordination with
a qualified
Prior to issuance
of demolition
permits
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
III documentation. The documentation shall include high resolution digital
photographic recordation, a historic narrative report, and compilation of historic
research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian
or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for History and/or Architectural History. The original archival-quality
documentation shall be offered as donated material to repositories that will make it
available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation
also would be submitted to the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Public Library,
where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation
measure shall be monitored and enforced by the City of Palo Alto.
historian or
historic architect
CR-2 Interpretive Display. Impacts resulting from the partial demolition of the
warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue, also known as 340 Portage Avenue, shall
be minimized through the installation of a high-quality, on-site interpretive display in
a publicly-accessible location, preferably near or within a portion of the retained
warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue at the applicant’s expense. The display
could focus on the property’s history, particularly the agricultural past of Santa Clara County and the canning operations of Bayside Canning Company. The interpretive
display should be prepared by a professional exhibit designer and historian; historic
information contained in Page & Turnbull’s HRE can serve as the basis for the
interpretive display. The goal of the interpretive display would be to educate the
public about the property’s historic themes and associations within broader cultural
contexts. The content of the display shall be approved by the Director of Planning &
Development Services or designee.
Property owner or
its designee
During project
design
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
CR-3 Worker Environmental Awareness Program. In the event that archaeological
resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in
the immediate area shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service
1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to
participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if
applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the
significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. All cultural
resources identified shall be evaluated for CRHR eligibility and local listing. Additional
work may be necessary to evaluate the resource for inclusion in the CRHR or local
listing. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-
invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery.
Property owner or
its designee in
coordination with
a qualified
archeologist
During ground
disturbing
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be
prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning. If the
discovery is determined to be Native American in nature, the on-site Native American
monitor, if applicable, shall be consulted to determine the appropriate treatment of
the resource. In the event that no Native American monitor is contracted, locally
affiliated Native American tribes shall be invited to consult regarding the appropriate
treatment of any Native American resources identified during project construction.
CR-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that
archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth-
disturbing work near the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) has evaluated the nature and significance of
the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA (Section 15064.5f; PRC
21082), additional work, such as preservation in place or archaeological data
recovery, shall occur as recommended by the archeologist in coordination with City
staff and if applicable, descendants and/or stakeholder groups. Once the resource has
been properly treated or protected, work in the area may resume. A Native American
representative shall be retained to monitor mitigation work associated with Native
American cultural material.
Property owner or
its designee in
coordination with
a qualified historic
architect and
native American
monitor as
appropriate
consistent with
MM
During ground
disturbing
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
CR-5 Suspension of Work Around Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural
resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be
temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist and culturally affiliated
Native American representative have evaluated the nature and significance of the
find. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the
resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation
plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in
consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of
the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the
appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the culturally affiliated
local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified
archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include,
but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource,
protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the
resource, or heritage recovery.
Property owner or
its designee in coordination with
a qualified historic
architect and
native American
monitor as
appropriate
consistent with
MM
During ground
disturbing
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development
Services
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 Regulatory Agency Notification and Approval. Prior to the issuance of
deconstruction, demolition, grading, building, or other permits necessary for
beginning of construction or development, the project applicant shall contact an
appropriate oversight agency such as the Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health (SCCDEH), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), to discuss the
proposed redevelopment project, the proposed residential land use, and the prior
environmental investigations, and determine the lead agency for assessment and/or
remediation at the project site. The project applicant shall provide the oversight
agency with the proposed site use plans regarding the conversion of commercial land
use to residential land use, copies of the 2020 and 2021 PES investigative reports, and
discuss the onsite presence of groundwater impacted by VOCs at the project site as
well as any concerns regarding potentially impacted soils or soil vapor.
The oversight agency may require the project applicant to conduct additional
investigation/studies, including, but not limited to, soil investigation, soil vapor surveys, and/or groundwater investigations to delineate the extent of contaminated
soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. The oversight agency may require approval of the
final Site Management Plan (SMP) required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, below,
prior to issuance of any required project permits. The project applicant shall comply
with the oversight requirements, conduct further investigations as required, and
submit the results to the oversight agency.
The oversight agency’s (SCCDEH, SFBRWQCB, or DTSC) agency approval documents
shall be delivered to and reviewed by the project applicant. The project applicant
shall furnish copies of the documents, including the final Site Management Plan or
equivalent document required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, to the City Planning
Department prior to issuance of grading permits.
If groundwater wells or soil vapor monitoring probes are identified during demolition,
subsurface demolition, or construction at the project site, they will be abandoned,
protected in place, or relocated per Santa Clara Valley Water District specifications.
Abandonment activities will be documented in a letter report submitted to Santa
Clara Valley Water District within 60 days of the completion of abandonment
activities.
Property owner or
its designee
Prior to the
issuance of
construction,
demolition,
grading,
building, or
other permits
necessary for
beginning of
construction
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department in
coordination with
selected oversight
agency (SCCDEH,
RWQCB, or DTSC)
HAZ-2 Site Management Plan for Impacted Soils, Soil Vapor and/or Groundwater.
The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California
Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Soil
Property owner or
its designee
Prior to
construction
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Management Plan (SMP) prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will
be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils, soil
vapor, groundwater, or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction
workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan shall establish remedial
measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety,
the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants
from the project site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited
to:
Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the
installation of BMPs
Soil sampling procedures for imported fill material (in accordance with DTSC’s
2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material)
Proper disposal procedures for contaminated materials
Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight notifications
A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that
addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction
activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and
health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to
hazardous materials during construction.
The City of Palo Alto and/or the oversight agency (SCCDEH, DTSC, or RWQCB) will
review and approve the SMP for impacted soils, soil vapor, and groundwater prior to
issuance of any permits necessary for the beginning of construction. The project
applicant will review and implement the SMP prior to and during demolition and
grading (construction).
Services
Department in
coordination with
selected oversight
agency (SCCDEH,
RWQCB, or DTSC)
Noise and Vibration
N-1 Vibration Reduction. The applicant shall retrofit the remaining historical building
at 200 Portage/340 Portage to withstand construction vibration up to 0.4 in/sec PPV
or higher (the Caltrans threshold for buildings in good repair) prior to demolition or
construction activities. The structure’s ability to accommodate vibration at the
specific level shall be verified by a qualified engineer.
Property owner or
its designee in
coordination with
a qualified
engineer
Prior to
demolition or
construction
activities
City of Palo Alto
Planning &
Development
Services
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: D0E27180-FA7A-44C6-8551-51C07B64B699
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: D0E27180FA7A44C6855151C07B64B699 Status: Completed
Subject: DocuSign: Resolution 10123
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 25 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Vinhloc Nguyen
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
9/19/2023 6:04:34 PM
Holder: Vinhloc Nguyen
Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Albert Yang
Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org
Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 97.126.2.199
Signed using mobile
Sent: 9/19/2023 6:10:05 PM
Resent: 9/25/2023 12:43:59 PM
Viewed: 9/25/2023 1:25:30 PM
Signed: 9/25/2023 1:26:00 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Jonathan Lait
Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org
Interim Director Planning and Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image
Using IP Address: 99.88.42.180
Sent: 9/25/2023 1:26:02 PM
Resent: 9/26/2023 11:37:10 AM
Resent: 9/26/2023 3:26:52 PM
Resent: 9/27/2023 8:48:25 AM
Resent: 9/27/2023 2:30:37 PM
Resent: 9/27/2023 3:17:38 PM
Viewed: 9/27/2023 5:03:45 PM
Signed: 9/27/2023 5:04:04 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Ed Shikada
Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org
Ed Shikada
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 9/27/2023 5:04:06 PM
Viewed: 9/27/2023 5:39:01 PM
Signed: 9/27/2023 5:39:05 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Lydia Kou
Lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org
Council Member
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 98.207.160.72
Sent: 9/27/2023 5:39:07 PM
Viewed: 9/27/2023 8:43:35 PM
Signed: 9/27/2023 8:44:14 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Mahealani Ah Yun
Mahealani.AhYun@CityofPaloAlto.org
Interim City Clerk
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Sent: 9/27/2023 8:44:16 PM
Viewed: 9/28/2023 9:29:02 AM
Signed: 9/28/2023 9:29:26 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 9/19/2023 6:10:05 PM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/25/2023 11:02:52 AM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/25/2023 11:02:52 AM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/25/2023 11:02:52 AM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/25/2023 11:02:52 AM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/25/2023 11:02:52 AM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/25/2023 11:02:52 AM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 9/25/2023 1:59:24 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 9/28/2023 9:29:02 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 9/28/2023 9:29:26 AM
Completed Security Checked 9/28/2023 9:29:26 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps