Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-14 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: November 14, 2018 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 2. Draft 2019 Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Provide Feedback on Conceptual Design Options to Improve Multimodal Connectivity and Safety along El Camino Real Between Stanford Avenue and Lambert Avenue Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation to the City Council an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.31 (CEQA Review) to Add Environmental Review and Compliance Regulations for Development Projects in Furtherance of and to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measures, as Documented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Adopted by Council Resolution 9721 on November 13, 2017. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.September 26, 2018 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes 6.October 10, 2018 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment Draft Meeting Minutes Draft Meeting Minutes _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Ed Lauing Vice Chair Susan Monk Commissioner Michael Alcheck Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner William Riggs Commissioner Doria Summa Commissioner Asher Waldfogel Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9656) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: • PTC Meeting Schedule • PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) • Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: • Attachment A: November 14, 2018 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2018 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2018 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs, Waldfogel 1/17/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Special 1/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 4/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing, Riggs 5/09/2018 5/22/2018 6:00 PM 6:00 PM Council Chambers Council Chambers Regular Special Cancelled(Alcheck, Lauing, Monk, Riggs) Alcheck 5/30/2018 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular 6/13/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Riggs 6/27/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 7/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Gardias, Riggs 8/08/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 8/29/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs, Waldfogel 9/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 10/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 11/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 12/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2018 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Ed Lauing Susan Monk Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Ed Lauing Doria Summa July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Michael Alcheck Asher Waldfogel Billy Riggs Michael Alchek Asher Waldfogel Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Ed Lauing Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2018 Tentative Future Agenda November 5, 2018 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics November 28, 2018 Cancelled December 12, 2018 • Study Session on Case Study of Neighborhood Traffic Impacts • 2321 Wellesley: Zone Change • Amendments to Wireless Facilities Requirements (18.42.10) • 3200 El Camino Real Parmani Hotel Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9825) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2019 PTC Meeting Dates Title: Draft 2019 Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and provide feedback regarding the Draft 2019 Meeting Schedule and Assignments. PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2679 jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Draft 2019 Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2019 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/24/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/08/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/29/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/12/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/26/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/31/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/14/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/28/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/25/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/09/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs TBD Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Michael Alcheck July August September October November December Ed Lauing TBD Michael Alcheck TBD Billy Riggs Doria Summa Billy Riggs Doria Summa TBD Ed Lauing TBD Ed Lauing Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Tentative Future Agenda November 5, 2018 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics January 30, 2019 TBD Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9556) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: El Camino Real Safety+Connectivity Planning Title: Provide Feedback on Conceptual Design Options to Improve Multimodal Connectivity and Safety along El Camino Real Between Stanford Avenue and Lambert Avenue From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss preliminary results of the Grand Boulevard Initiative: Creating Safe and Healthy Corridor Communities planning project and provide input to staff on Conceptual Design Option 1 and Option 2. Report Summary El Camino Real has long been the focus of local and regional planning activity. From the City of Palo Alto’s 2007 Draft El Camino Real Master Plan and the 2002 South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, to the broader vision of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, many challenges and opportunities related to land use, design, and transportation have been raised. Unlike past city-led efforts, the Grand Boulevard Initiative: Creating Safe and Healthy Corridor Communities planning project is highly focused, both spatially and topically. Spatially, the project limits are a short segment of El Camino Real: Stanford Avenue to Lambert Avenue. Topically, safety is the prime criteria: 51 bicyclist and pedestrian involved crashes have occurred along this 0.8-mile section between 2005 and 2015. Background One of the eight goals in the Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Element centers on providing a safe environment for all modes on Palo Alto streets and is further described as the first priority of citywide transportation planning. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 In early 2015, results of a collaborative collision analysis along El Camino Real, conducted through interagency partnerships forged through the Grand Boulevard Initiative, revealed high bicycle and pedestrian collision rates on El Camino Real between Stanford Avenue and Lambert Avenue. A unique multi-agency grant application proposal was selected as the preferred method to undertake a planning process to comprehensively engage communities, incorporate feedback, and develop potential streetscape concept plans. SamTrans, as one of the coordinating agencies of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, volunteered to be the primary grant applicant. In fall 2015, SamTrans, in collaboration with the City’s Office of Transportation and Redwood City’s Community Development Department, submitted a grant application to Caltrans’s Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program called Grand Boulevard Initiative: Creating Safe and Healthy Corridor Communities. The primary goal of the project is to develop streetscape design options in response to high bicycle and pedestrian collision rates along two segments of El Camino Real in the respective partner cities. SamTrans’s Communities project proposal was awarded $349,074 by Caltrans in summer 2016. In January 2017, the City of Palo Alto entered into a funding agreement with SamTrans, authorizing use of $22,613 in matching local funds for the project. Throughout 2018, public meetings and surveys presented facts and solicited community feedback on transportation-related concerns in the study area. The Planning & Transportation Commission study session is one element in the final phase of the project’s outreach before concluding in January 2019 with conceptual plans and a summary of public feedback. Commission feedback is sought on two attached conceptual designs. Discussion Community feedback and analysis of technical data indicate multimodal safety, mobility, and connectivity are key areas for potential improvement along the study corridor. These categories, among others, guided development of the two conceptual design options for the study corridor. Analysis of these factors is provided in the following paragraphs followed by a summary of the design options and several questions for commission discussion around areas of concern. SAFETY Between 2006 and 2015, 51 people walking or biking along El Camino Real between Stanford and Lambert Avenue were involved in a collision. This is an average of five people each year over a 10-year span. The collision data originate from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and were analyzed by Fehr & Peers, the lead transportation planning and engineering consulting firm working on this study. The following tables are a summary of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 bicycle and pedestrian crash profile graphics and maps, which are available as an attachment to this report. This Area Intentionally Blank See Table on Following Page City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Pedestrian Collision Profiles 2006-2015 Total Crashes: 20 Four Frequent Crash Types Summary of Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Potential Causes & Countermeasures Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection • 7 crashes occurred at side-street stop-controlled intersections • 4 crashes: Driver failure to yield • 3 crashes: Pedestrian crossing El Camino Real • Causes: High speeds; impaired sight lines; limited gaps in traffic; distance between crosswalks • Countermeasures: curb extensions; remove some parking to clear sight lines; slow vehicle turns Vulnerable Populations (Seniors) • 7 crashes involved injuries to seniors walking • Sunrise Senior Living facility is adjacent to the corridor • Senior-friendly design: longer walk signal times • Focus pedestrian improvements adjacent to senior centers Red Light Violations • 6 crashes where either a vehicle or pedestrian entered intersection against the signal • Shorter signal cycles at key intersections Permitted Right Turns • 6 crashes occurred when vehicle was turning right onto or off of El Camino Real. • 5 of 6 occurred at signalized intersections and while pedestrian was in crosswalk • Same as Side-Street Stop crash countermeasures Bicyclist Collision Profiles 2006-2015 Total Crashes: 31 Four Frequent Crash Types Summary of Bicycle-Involved Collisions Potential Causes & Countermeasures High Speed Traffic and Shared Travel Lane • 9 crashes: midblock sideswipe and rear-end collisions • Occurred when vehicle was changing lanes • Causes: Bicyclists share high-speed auto travel lanes • Countermeasures: traffic calming; driver education; wayfinding directing cyclists to alternate routes; and/or dedicated bicycle facilities Wrong-Way Bicycling • 9 crashes: Occurs when cyclist is travelling in the street opposite the direction of motor vehicle traffic • Existing facilities do not meet a cyclist’s desire lines • Expand cycling facilities and ensure reasonably short signal cycle lengths Side Streets and Driveways • 5 Crashes: Vehicle or bicyclist entering or exiting El Camino Real and failed to yield to a vehicle or bicyclist travelling on the street. • Causes: inhibited sight lines; limited gaps in traffic; right of way confusion • Countermeasures: clear sight lines; clarify right-of-way at intersections Red Light Violation • 4 crashes: vehicle or bicycle entered the intersection during a red light. • Shorter signal cycles at key intersections The nine reported sideswipe and rear-end bicycle-involved collisions are a surprising outlier and offer insight towards potential countermeasures. These collision types are uncommon on urban roads where there are either few cyclists or motor traffic speeds and volumes are low enough City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 that travel lanes may be shared between bicyclists and motor vehicles with less crash risk. On El Camino Real, neither of these conditions appears to be present. Motor traffic routinely exceed the 35MPH posted speed limit and high vehicle volumes likely complicate passing maneuvers around cyclists within the travel lane. Furthermore, despite the automobile-dominant environment, cyclists are still traveling on El Camino Real. Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision “heat map” showing location and frequency of collisions along the study corridor. CONNECTIVITY Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity issues generally relate to the quality of east-west crossings of El Camino Real and needs along El Camino Real. Most continuous east-west streets which cross El Camino Real are classified either an existing or planned bikeway connection or suggested safe route to school. However, with the exception of Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real, few intersections have received substantial upgrades. Some intersections, such as College Avenue have a marked crosswalk, but no type of control, such as a signal, which is not recommended in the latest federal design guidelines. Furthermore, the distance between crossings can be long, reinforcing the perception that El Camino Real is a barrier to community connectivity. Along El Camino Real, there are no on-street bicycle facilities, and as the collision findings note, sharing the road can be hazardous. Despite the discomfort with cycling on an automobile- oriented road, the land use characteristics of the corridor likely contribute to travel demand by bicycle, particularly within the study area. Businesses, offices, community facilities, and increasingly mixed-use residential land uses directly front El Camino Real, necessitating that those approaching via bicycle complete their trip on at least a few blocks of El Camino Real. Other major destinations such as Palo Alto Square and the Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields, may only be reached conveniently from most residential neighborhoods via El Camino Real. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Existing and proposed bicycle network in the vicinity of the study area. With the exception of the Stanford Perimeter Trail, which ends at Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real, all bikeways are east-west oriented. Star icons denote major destinations. MOBILITY AND ACCESS In the Comprehensive Plan, El Camino Real is classified as an arterial, a roadway typology commonly associated with mobility and higher travel speeds. Additionally, the corridor hosts the city’s most frequent and heavily patronized bus services: VTA line 22 and 522. Community feedback touched on the importance the road plays in moving large volumes of motor traffic relatively quickly and that it would remain a major force along the corridor, moderated with streetscaping and safety countermeasures. However, based on results from dot exercises and online surveys, opinions diverged regarding the need for on-street auto parking along El Camino Real. Project staff organized a stakeholder meeting with CalMOCA, a California Avenue Merchant organization, and the feedback received was to retain parking supply and focus bicycle and pedestrian improvements on east-west connectivity. Parking occupancy surveys conducted as part of the project partially reflect this result: parking occupancy is relatively low along most block faces within the study area. In the graphic below, dark red indicates occupancy greater than 85%, or when parking would be difficult to find. In addition to potential changes to curbside uses, the project is considering new transit “queue jump” lanes approaching the El Camino Real and Page Mill Road intersection. The operations of the lanes were evaluated using traffic simulation software which can better account for random arrivals of vehicles and corridor congestion than traditional methods. Initial results show significant travel time savings for both transit riders and drivers of private vehicles, but street trees and right-of-way acquisition would be required along the Palo Alto Square and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Stanford/Community Playing Fields frontages. The following results from the preliminary analysis show significant reductions in delay. Further analysis and approvals from Caltrans and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports would be required if detailed conceptual design and steps toward implementation were desired. Table: Transit Delay (seconds) at Page Mill Rd/El Camino Real PM AM Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Background Cond. 100 110 70 100 Option 1 + Option 2 -35 (35.0%) -15 (15.0%) - -40 (40.0%) On-street parking occupancy along El Camino Real within the limits of the study area. CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS After compiling community feedback from two outreach events and two surveys, the project team developed conceptual design plans for two options along the study corridor (El Camino Real; Stanford Ave to Lambert Ave). The following are a summary of the key differences between the two options. Full-size concept plans are presented as attachments. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Option 1 Option 2 Bicycle • Protected bicycle lanes along the study corridor, including at key intersections • No bike facility on El Camino Real • Potential enhancement or implementation of parallel bikeways Transit Reliability • Queue jump lanes at Page Mill/El Camino Real; some property acquisition required • Bus bulb-out boarding areas with passenger amenities • Substantial reduction in delay for transit at the intersection • Moderate reduction in delay for automobiles Parking • All on-street parking removed along El Camino in the study area • Additional parking management analysis required • Some on-street parking removed to achieve safety benefits Pedestrian • Install curb extensions to shorten crossings, improve visibility, slow turning vehicles • Potential shorter traffic signal cycles • New controlled mid-block pedestrian crossings at College Avenue; Grant Avenue and Olive Avenue, reducing distance between crossings. • Opportunity for streetscaping & placemaking with new pedestrian light fixtures, street trees, and furnishings. As shown in the table, there are several major changes proposed in either or both option 1 and 2, for which staff is seeking Commission feedback: 1) In the study area, one option would remove all on-street parking and install protected bicycle lanes. What are commissioner preferences for curbside uses along the study corridor? 2) Both options include a bus transit “queue jump” lane on the El Camino Real approaches to the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection, requiring right-of-way acquisition and removal of street trees along the Palo Alto Square and Stanford Playing Field frontages. What benefits and drawbacks do commissioners see with this aspect of the project? Are there additional features or considerations that should be included? Analysis The City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and 2017 Comprehensive Plan 2030 are two primary policy documents which informed development of the concept plans. The two conceptual design options presented for consideration are consistent with many goals, plans and programs identified in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan 2030. There are a few differences and factors to consider, however: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 • Option 1 (Protected Bike Lanes) would result in safer bicycle access to destinations along El Camino Real and respond to the known bicycle collision pattern along the corridor. Option 2 does not provide an equivalent degree of bicyclist connectivity or safety. • Bus Queue Jump Lanes: Transit priority treatments are identified as a mitigation measure in the Comprehensive Plan 2030 EIR and were conceptually developed with feedback from VTA. The project options are consistent with the following goals, policies, and programs in the Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Element: Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complimented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and through the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. Policy T-1.6: Encourage innovation and expanded transit access to regional destinations, multi-modal transit stations, employment centers and commercial centers, including those within Palo Alto through the use of efficient public and/or private transit options such as rideshare services, on-demand local shuttles and other first/last mile connections. Policy T-1.9: Continue to encourage the provision of amenities such as seating, lighting and signage, including real-time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety and convenience. Program T1.12.3: Work with VTA to study the feasibility of, and if warranted provide, traffic signal prioritization for buses at Palo Alto intersections, focusing first on regional transit routes. Also, advocate for bus service improvements on El Camino Real such as queue jump lanes and curbside platforms. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Goal T-2: Decrease delay, congestion, and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impact of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections. Policy-T-3.5: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users. Goal T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. Program T3.5.1: Continue to use best practices in roadway design that are consistent with complete streets principles and the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety and multi-modal uses. Consider opportunities to incorporate best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for urban streets and bikeways, tailored to the Palo Alto context. Policy-T-3.7: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. Goal T-5: Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users. Goal T-6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Outreach activities are structured into three stages. The following have occurred or are planned: Stage 1: Winter 2018 • Pop-up event at the California Avenue Farmer’s Market • Online Survey Stage 2: Summer 2018 • Pop-up event at the California Avenue Farmer’s Market • Online Survey Stage 3: Fall 2018 • Pop-up event at the California Avenue Farmer’s Market • PABAC Meeting City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 • Planning Commission Meeting • Evening Open House Community Meeting. • Online Survey City Council: Winter 2019 • City Council Meeting [Tentative] The survey link was emailed to a list of those interested in project updates as well as to local school communities, posted to the project website, and distributed at outreach events. The online surveys completed to date have generated 1,700 comments about where improvements should be focused and were instrumental in shaping the two concept plans. The final survey is open for community feedback now and is on the project website here. Project Schedule & Future Commission feedback received at this meeting will be shared at the winter 2019 City Council meeting and ultimately incorporated into a final report prepared at the conclusion of the Communities study. The final report and concept plans represent the final deliverables for the Communities study and will potentially allow the city to develop and implement changes along all or a portion of the corridor, if ultimately authorized by City Council. The City does have $4.6 million in separate grant funding available to prepare design plans and construct multimodal streetscape improvements along El Camino Real between Stanford Avenue and Grant Avenue. However, employing this funding will require additional outreach and design, work for which staff have not identified resources to support. Environmental Review The study session is a preliminary review process in which commissioners may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) is required at this time. The proposed action will be assessed in accordance with CEQA prior to any request for a formal recommendation. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Jarrett Mullen, Senior Transportation Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Interim Director (650) 329-2218 (650) 329-2679 jarrett.mullen@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Option 1 Concept Plan (PDF) • Attachment B: Option 2 Concept Plan (PDF) • Attachment C: California Ave 3d Rendering Option 1+2 [FINAL]reduced (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 • Attachment D: Hansen Way 3d Rendering Option 1+2 (PDF) SHERMANAVE CALIFORNIAAVE CAMBRIDGEAVE COLLEGEAVE OXFORDAVE STANFORDAVE EL C A M I N O R E A L EL C A M I N O R E A L EXI S T I N G BUS S T O P ACACIAAVE PORTAGEAVE HANSENWAY EL C A M I N O R E A L LAMBERTAVE STAN F O R D PERI M E T E R TRAI L OLIVEAVE PEPPERAVE SHERIDANAVE GRANTAVE PAGE MILL RD EX I S T I N G BU S S T O P BUS S T O P POT E N T I A L REL O C A T E D BU S S T O P PORTAGEAVE LAMBERTAVE EX I S T I N G BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 RE L O C A T E D BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 EL C A M I N O R E A L : be t w e e n St a n f o r d A v e a n d L a m b e r t A v e OP T I O N 1 : I n s t a l l P r o t e c t e d B i k e L a n e s i n P l a c e o f O n - S t r e e t P a r k i n g SEP A R A T E RIG H T T U R N PH A S E A D D E D DE D I C A T E D R I G H T T U R N LAN E C O N S O L I D A T E D T O MAK E R O O M F O R PR O T E C T E D B I K E L A N E SEP A R A T E RIG H T T U R N PH A S E A D D E D DRI V E W A Y RE M O V E D D U E T O RE D E V E L O P M E N T DRI V E W A Y REM O V E D D U E T O RED E V E L O P M E N T DRI V E W A Y APP R O A C H A D D E D TO S I G N A L T I M I N G RIG H T T U R N SLI P L A N E S CLO S E D NO R I G H T T U R N ON R E D T O PRO T E C T B I K E B O X NO R I G H T T U R N ON R E D T O PR O T E C T B I K E B O X BU S S T O P T O B E D E S I G N E D P E R PE N D I N G V T A D E S I G N S T A N D A R D S BUS S T O P T O B E D E S I G N E D P E R PEN D I N G V T A D E S I G N S T A N D A R D S BUS S T O P T O B E D E S I G N E D P E R PEN D I N G V T A D E S I G N S T A N D A R D S BUS S T O P T O B E D E S I G N E D PER P E N D I N G V T A D E S I G N STA N D A R D S BU S S T O P T O B E D E S I G N E D PE R P E N D I N G V T A D E S I G N ST A N D A R D S BU S S T O P T O B E D E S I G N E D PER P E N D I N G V T A D E S I G N STA N D A R D S SEP A R A T E B I C Y C L E SIG N A L P H A S I N G SEP A R A T E B I C Y C L E SIG N A L P H A S I N G DE T A I L 1 EL C A M I N O R E A L : b e t w e e n S t a n f o r d A v e a n d L a m b e r t A v e OP T I O N 1 : I n s t a l l P r o t e c t e d B i k e L a n e s i n P l a c e o f O n - S t r e e t P a r k i n g * pe n d i n g e v a l u a t i o n o f p e d e s t r i a n v i s i b i l i t y Rem o v e E x i s t i n g C u r b Pro p o s e d T r a f f i c S i g n La n d s c a p e M e d i a n s Har d s c a p e A r e a Sid e S t r e e t S t o p I n t e r s e c t i o n Ex i s t i n g C u r b Pro p o s e d C u r b Nee d f o r I m p r o v e m e n t Pot e n t i a l I m p r o v e m e n t App r o v e d P r o j e c t s Pen d i n g P r o j e c t s STANFORD AVE Tra f f i c s i g n a l imp r o v e m e n t Im p r o v e d Way f i n d i n g S i g n a g e Sa f e R o u t e s t o Sch o o l Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Co m m e n t : I m p r o v e Bik e C r o s s i n g Tw o - s t a g e L e f t - t u r n Bicy c l e B o x Rig h t t u r n o n red r e s t r i c t i o n Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t s OXFORD AVE COLLEGE AVE Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t Red c u r b t o i m p r o v e sig h t d i s t a n c e Ne w p e d e s t r i a n hyb r i d b e a c o n Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Ped C r o s s i n g Ke y C o l l i s i o n T h e m e : Sid e S t r e e t s CAMBRIDGE AVE Bicy c l e c o l l i s i o n hot s p o t Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : R e d Ligh t V i o l a t i o n s Traf f i c s i g n a l im p r o v e m e n t Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t CALIFORNIA AVE Rig h t t u r n o n red r e s t r i c t i o n Gree n b i c y c l e mar k i n g Tw o - s t a g e le f t - t u r n bic y c l e b o x * Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Ped e s t r i a n col l i s i o n h o t s p o t Saf e R o u t e s t o Sch o o l Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Co m m e n t : I m p r o v e Ped C r o s s i n g Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Bik e C r o s s i n g Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : P e r m i t t e d Rig h t T u r n s Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t SHERMAN AVE Red c u r b t o i m p r o v e sig h t d i s t a n c e Key C o l l i s i o n T h e m e : Sid e S t r e e t s Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t GRANT AVE Left - t u r n acc e s s r e m o v a l Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t New p e d e s t r i a n hyb r i d b e a c o n SHERIDAN AVE Red c u r b t o im p r o v e s i g h t dist a n c e Ped e s t r i a n co l l i s i o n h o t s p o t Key C o l l i s i o n Th e m e : Sid e S t r e e t s Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t OREGON EXPY / PAGE MILL RD Rem o v e sli p l a n e Freq u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : R o a d w a y Mai n t e n a n c e N e e d e d Traf f i c s i g n a l im p r o v e m e n t Gre e n b i c y c l e ma r k i n g Two - s t a g e lef t - t u r n bic y c l e b o x Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Freq u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Ped C r o s s i n g Freq u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Bike C r o s s i n g Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t s PEPPER AVE OLIVE AVE Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Bicy c l e c o l l i s i o n hot s p o t Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t New p e d e s t r i a n hyb r i d b e a c o n Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t s ACACIA AVE PORTAGE AVE / HANSEN WAY Righ t t u r n o n red r e s t r i c t i o n Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : P e r m i t t e d Rig h t T u r n s Rem o v e slip l a n e Traf f i c s i g n a l im p r o v e m e n t Two - s t a g e lef t - t u r n bicy c l e b o x Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Bicy c l e c o l l i s i o n hot s p o t Ped e s t r i a n co l l i s i o n h o t s p o t Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : R e d Lig h t V i o l a t i o n s Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t s LAMBERT AVE Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e SHERMANAVE CALIFORNIAAVE CAMBRIDGEAVE COLLEGEAVE OXFORDAVE STANFORDAVE EL C A M I N O R E A L EL C A M I N O R E A L EXI S T I N G BUS S T O P ACACIAAVE PORTAGEAVE HANSENWAY EL C A M I N O R E A L LAMBERTAVE STAN F O R D PERI M E T E R TRAI L OLIVEAVE PEPPERAVE SHERIDANAVE GRANTAVE PAGE MILL RD EX I S T I N G BU S S T O P BUS S T O P POT E N T I A L REL O C A T E D BU S S T O P PORTAGEAVE LAMBERTAVE EX I S T I N G BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 RE L O C A T E D BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 BU S S T O P SEE B U S S T O P D E T A I L 1 EL C A M I N O R E A L : be t w e e n St a n f o r d A v e a n d L a m b e r t A v e OP T I O N 2 : M a i n t a i n O n - S t r e e t P a r k i n g a n d F o c u s o n P a r a l l e l B i c y c l e S t r e e ts NO R I G H T T U R N ON R E D T O PR O T E C T B I K E B O X SEP A R A T E RIG H T T U R N PH A S E A D D E D DR I V E W A Y REM O V E D D U E T O RED E V E L O P M E N T DRI V E W A Y RE M O V E D D U E T O RE D E V E L O P M E N T DRI V E W A Y APP R O A C H A D D E D TO S I G N A L T I M I N G RIG H T T U R N SLIP L A N E S CLO S E D BU S S T O P T O B E DES I G N E D P E R P E N D I N G VTA D E S I G N S T A N D A R D S BUS S T O P T O B E DES I G N E D P E R P E N D I N G VTA D E S I G N S T A N D A R D S BU S S T O P T O B E DES I G N E D P E R P E N D I N G VT A D E S I G N S T A N D A R D S BU S S T O P T O B E DE S I G N E D P E R P E N D I N G VT A D E S I G N S T A N D A R D S AC C E S S T O P R O P O S E D D R I V E W A Y F O R AP P R O V E D D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T T O B E AC C O M O D A T E D W I T H B U S S T O P D E S I G N SEP A R A T E B I C Y C L E SIG N A L P H A S I N G SE P A R A T E B I C Y C L E SIG N A L P H A S I N G DRI V E W A Y T O B E R E M O V E D AS P A R T O F A P P R O V E D DE V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T DE T A I L 1 EL C A M I N O R E A L : b e t w e e n S t a n f o r d A v e a n d L a m b e r t A v e OP T I O N 2 : M a i n t a i n O n - S t r e e t P a r k i n g a n d F o c u s o n P a r a l l e l B i c y c l e S t r e e t s * pe n d i n g e v a l u a t i o n o f p e d e s t r i a n v i s i b i l i t y Rem o v e E x i s t i n g C u r b Pro p o s e d T r a f f i c S i g n La n d s c a p e M e d i a n s Har d s c a p e A r e a Sid e S t r e e t S t o p I n t e r s e c t i o n Ex i s t i n g C u r b Pro p o s e d C u r b Nee d f o r I m p r o v e m e n t Pot e n t i a l I m p r o v e m e n t App r o v e d P r o j e c t s Pen d i n g P r o j e c t s BEGINNING OF STUDY SEGMENT END OF STUDY SEGMENT STANFORD AVE Tra f f i c s i g n a l imp r o v e m e n t Im p r o v e d Way f i n d i n g S i g n a g e Sa f e R o u t e s t o Sch o o l Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Co m m e n t : I m p r o v e Bik e C r o s s i n g Tw o - s t a g e L e f t - t u r n Bicy c l e B o x Rig h t t u r n o n red r e s t r i c t i o n Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t s OXFORD AVE COLLEGE AVE Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t Red c u r b t o i m p r o v e sig h t d i s t a n c e Ne w p e d e s t r i a n hyb r i d b e a c o n Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Ped C r o s s i n g Ke y C o l l i s i o n T h e m e : Sid e S t r e e t s CAMBRIDGE AVE Bicy c l e c o l l i s i o n hot s p o t Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : R e d Ligh t V i o l a t i o n s Traf f i c s i g n a l im p r o v e m e n t Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t CALIFORNIA AVE Rig h t t u r n o n red r e s t r i c t i o n Gree n b i c y c l e mar k i n g Tw o - s t a g e le f t - t u r n bic y c l e b o x * Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Ped e s t r i a n col l i s i o n h o t s p o t Saf e R o u t e s t o Sch o o l Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Co m m e n t : I m p r o v e Ped C r o s s i n g Fre q u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Bik e C r o s s i n g Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : P e r m i t t e d Rig h t T u r n s Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t SHERMAN AVE Red c u r b t o i m p r o v e sig h t d i s t a n c e Key C o l l i s i o n T h e m e : Sid e S t r e e t s Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t GRANT AVE Left - t u r n acc e s s r e m o v a l Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t New p e d e s t r i a n hyb r i d b e a c o n SHERIDAN AVE Red c u r b t o im p r o v e s i g h t dist a n c e Ped e s t r i a n co l l i s i o n h o t s p o t Key C o l l i s i o n Th e m e : Sid e S t r e e t s Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t OREGON EXPY / PAGE MILL RD Rem o v e sli p l a n e Freq u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : R o a d w a y Mai n t e n a n c e N e e d e d Traf f i c s i g n a l im p r o v e m e n t Gre e n b i c y c l e ma r k i n g Two - s t a g e lef t - t u r n bic y c l e b o x Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Freq u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Ped C r o s s i n g Freq u e n t P u b l i c Com m e n t : I m p r o v e Bike C r o s s i n g Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t s PEPPER AVE OLIVE AVE Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Bicy c l e c o l l i s i o n hot s p o t Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t New p e d e s t r i a n hyb r i d b e a c o n Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t s ACACIA AVE PORTAGE AVE / HANSEN WAY Righ t t u r n o n red r e s t r i c t i o n Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : P e r m i t t e d Rig h t T u r n s Rem o v e slip l a n e Traf f i c s i g n a l im p r o v e m e n t Two - s t a g e lef t - t u r n bicy c l e b o x Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e Bicy c l e c o l l i s i o n hot s p o t Ped e s t r i a n co l l i s i o n h o t s p o t Key C o l l i s i o n The m e : R e d Lig h t V i o l a t i o n s Cro s s w a l k enh a n c e m e n t Cro s s w a l k en h a n c e m e n t s LAMBERT AVE Im p r o v e d way f i n d i n g sig n a g e El C a m i n o R e a l a t H a n s e n W a y (L o o k i n g N o r t h - E a s t ) - O p t i o n 1 El C a m i n o R e a l a t H a n s e n W a y (L o o k i n g N o r t h - E a s t ) - O p t i o n 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9432) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: CEQA Ordinance Update Title: PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation to the City Council an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.31 (CEQA Review) to Add Environmental Review and Compliance Regulations for Development Projects in Furtherance of and to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measures, as Documented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Adopted by Council Resolution 9721 on November 13, 2017. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.31 to the City Council, including approval of the relevant standards in the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects which is incorporated by reference in the ordinance. Report Summary The proposed ordinance addresses implementation of six mitigation measures identified in the Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). The six mitigation measures require updates to the local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as codified in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.31, CEQA Review. These mitigation measures identify additional requirements for specific types of development projects in order to reduce impacts on either air quality or aesthetics throughout Palo Alto. In addition to addressing these six mitigation measures, the proposed ordinance would codify three best management practices to ensure these are implemented for all projects, regardless of whether an environmental analysis is required to be prepared in accordance with CEQA. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background On November 13, 2017, Council adopted Resolution No. 9721 (Attachment C), certifying the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR, making the required findings under CEQA and adopting the associated MMRP (Attachment D). The Council also adopted Resolution No. 9722, adopting the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update. The certified EIR and adopted MMRP identified six mitigation measures that require the City to amend its local CEQA guidelines established in Chapter 18.31 of the PAMC. The proposed ordinance included in Attachment A would amend Chapter 18.31 in order to implement these required mitigation measures. Discussion The staff recommendation includes two components: 1) the proposed ordinance; and 2) the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects, which is incorporated by reference in the ordinance. Both are described in further detail below. Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.31 Table 1 below summarizes the six mitigation measures addressed in the ordinance. The analysis section summarizes how each of these mitigation measures is addressed in the ordinance. Table 1: Mitigation Measures Requiring Updates to PAMC Chapter 18.31 Comprehensive Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Requirement MM Air-2a The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines and Municipal Code to require, as part of the City’s development approval process, that applicants for future development projects comply with the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). MM AIR‐2b The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines to require that, prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction‐related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction‐related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8‐3, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Table 1: Mitigation Measures Requiring Updates to PAMC Chapter 18.31 Comprehensive Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Requirement the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City. MM Air 2-C To ensure that development projects that have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria air pollutants listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce regional air pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed Plan shall include policies that address the following topic: require compliance with BAAQMD requirements, including BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. MM AIR‐3a The City of Palo Alto shall update its CEQA Procedures to require that future non‐residential projects within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel‐powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended for implementation by the BAAQMD. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to: • Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. • Electrifying warehousing docks. • Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. • Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Table 1: Mitigation Measures Requiring Updates to PAMC Chapter 18.31 Comprehensive Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Requirement Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. MM AIR-3b To ensure that new industrial and warehousing projects with the potential to generate new stationary and mobile sources of air toxics that exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, amend the City’s CEQA guidelines to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. MM AES-4 The City shall amend its local CEQA guidelines to require development projects of a certain size or location to prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The analysis shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. The analysis shall identify whether the project would shadow open spaces during these times, explain how the project meets City design requirements and other City policy goals, and describe ways to mitigate substantial shade and shadow impacts through feasible building and site design features. In addition to addressing these six mitigation measures, the proposed ordinance would codify three best management practices that Planning staff already consistently requires as conditions of approval for projects. These are being incorporated into the code amendment to ensure that they continue to be implemented for all projects, as applicable, regardless of whether an environmental analysis is required to be prepared in accordance with CEQA. These three requirements include 1) a requirement for certain development projects to conduct a nesting bird survey prior to construction, demolition, or vegetation removal during the avian nesting season; 2) a requirement for all development projects to implement best management practices for the protection of historic, archeological, paleontological and tribal cultural resources if they are found during earthmoving activities; and 3) a requirement for development projects within the California-Olive-Emerson Plume to install a vapor barrier system or identify other acceptable design features to address impacts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on future users. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects Some of these mitigation measures refer to recommendations of other responsible agencies, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) or State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. However, as new information becomes available or state regulations change, these agencies regularly update their guidelines. Because some of these required mitigation measures include specific implementation details that may need to be refined over time to reflect updated guidance, the proposed ordinance incorporates by reference a separate List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects. This list would include finer details such as recommended screening criteria, recommended air quality thresholds, methodology for preparing specific analyses, and recommended mitigation. As specified in the ordinance, the list would be maintained by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and refined, as needed, to reflect current best management practices and agency recommendations. Analysis1 The following summarizes how the code amendment addresses each of the six Comprehensive Plan Update EIR mitigation measures. MM Air-2a To address MM Air-2a, the ordinance in Attachment A proposes that the following language be added to the Municipal Code as Section 18.31.040(A): All development projects shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 Construction emissions of particulate matter of up to ten microns in size (PM10) are primarily generated by earthmoving activities. PM10 (i.e., dust) is a criteria pollutant that can be reduced through the implementation of standard best management practices, such as watering soil prior to earthmoving activities. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, Table 8-2, includes a list of recommended best management practices that should be implemented for projects. This proposed language would make these recommendations a requirement for all development projects, consistent with the requirements of MM Air-2a. Because the BAAQMD may refine or update their recommendations for dust control over time, the details of the required measures are included in the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects, which would be updated as needed to require the most recent applicable guidance from the BAAQMD on dust control. MM AIR‐2b and AIR-2c 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 To address these mitigation measures, the ordinance in Attachment A proposes that the following language be added to the Municipal Code as Section 18.31.040(B): Prior to issuance of any construction permit, including any building or grading permit, the applicant for a development project that meets or exceeds the screening levels for criteria air pollutants under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the Director a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. If any construction related criteria air pollutant exceeds the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction to below the thresholds. Any required measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents submitted to the City. BAAQMD has identified a list of projects, based on size and type, which are assumed to be below the BAAQMD recommended thresholds of significance. The proposed language would require that any project seeking a construction permit, and which exceeds BAAQMD’s screening levels, based on the size and type of development, would be required to prepare an analysis evaluating their construction-related air quality impacts to determine whether the project exceeds the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. It also requires incorporation of mitigation for projects found to exceed the thresholds. Because BAAQMD reviews and updates their screening levels, thresholds of significance, and recommended mitigation as new information becomes available, the details of these current BAAQMD recommendations have been incorporated into the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects and may be updated by the Director in the future to ensure consistency with the most recent applicable BAAQMD guidance. MM AIR‐3a To address MM Air-3a, the ordinance includes new language as Section 18.31.040(C) which states: Prior to the issuance of any planning entitlement and/or building permit, non‐residential projects within the City that (1) will generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel‐powered transportation refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto and comply with best practices recommended for implementation by BAAQMD to reduce toxic air contaminants. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the methodology outlined in the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects maintained by the Director of Planning. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant must identify reduction measures and demonstrate that the measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 acceptable level, including identification of appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Any reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as requirements in the environmental document or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Consistent with MM AIR-3a, this language codifies the requirement that projects of a certain type and location, must prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prior to issuance of any entitlement or building permit. Because guidance from the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD on HRAs may be refined over time, information on the methodology for preparing an HRA is provided in the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects and would be updated, as needed, to reflect any changes in agency recommendations. MM AIR-3b To address MM Air-3b, the ordinance includes new language as Section 18.31.040(D) which states: Prior to the issuance of any planning entitlement and/or building permit, any new industrial or warehousing project with the potential to generate new stationary or mobile sources of air toxics must prepare an analysis to determine whether the project would exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5. If the project is found to exceed the BAAQMD recommended thresholds, the applicant shall identify measures to reduce emissions in accordance with the BAAQMD recommendations to below the thresholds. This language requires an analysis of toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 for any new industrial or warehousing projects in the City to determine whether the project exceeds BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds. Because BAAQMD may revise their recommended thresholds in the future, the specific thresholds are provided in the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects and may be updated by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. MM AES-4 To address MM AES-4, the ordinance includes new language as Section 18.31.040(E) which states: With the exception of single family residences, any project that includes the construction of a new building(s) two-stories or taller, and located adjacent to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks), shall prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The analysis of the new building(s) shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. The analysis shall identify whether the project would shadow public open spaces during these times, explain how the project meets City City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 design requirements, policies and goals, and describe ways to mitigate substantial shade and shadow impacts through feasible building and site design features. In accordance with the requirements of MM AES-4, the proposed code language specifies which types of project shall be required to prepare an analysis of shade/shadow impacts and what the analysis shall entail. Nesting Bird Surveys The proposed ordinance includes new language as Section 18.31.040(I) which states: Prior to demolition, vegetation removal, or construction of any new building or building addition during the avian nesting season (February 15th through September 31st) on a site used for commercial, mixed-use, multi-family or open space and with existing mature trees, an avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey and document the findings of the survey in a report provided to the Director of Planning no more than 14 days prior to the start of work. Planning staff has been requiring avian nesting surveys as mitigation measures in environmental documents or as conditions of approval if the identified criteria have been met. However, some projects may only require a ministerial permit (e.g. housing projects subject to SB 35). In order to ensure that all applicable projects are required to protect nesting birds in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, staff recommends that this standard requirement be codified. Cultural, Archeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources The proposed ordinance includes new language as Section 18.31.040(J) which states: During construction on any site throughout the City, if a previously unknown archaeological, cultural, or paleontological resource is unearthed, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist, historian or paleontologist, depending on the nature of the find, has evaluated the nature and significance and has determined appropriate protection for the resource. Protection may include such measures as avoidance or preparation of a Treatment Plan and curation of the resource. If the potential resource is identified as Native American in origin, a Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, shall be consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with appropriate Native American group(s). The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative. Planning staff, in practice, requires this best management practice for all projects subject to CEQA. However, this best management practice should be followed for all projects throughout City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 the City in the event that an unknown resource is discovered, regardless of the type or size of development and regardless of whether the project is subject to CEQA. Therefore, staff recommends that this standard requirement be codified. Vapor Barrier System The proposed ordinance includes new language as Section 18.31.040(K) which states: For projects within the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume area, a vapor membrane system shall be installed to mitigate vapor intrusion and reduce exposure of future occupants in the basement and/or building above to volatile organic compounds. The vapor membrane system shall: i. Envelop the below grade portion of the proposed building, including areas below and above the groundwater table ii. Include a fan triggered by CO sensors for ventilation iii. Include an HVAC system to control air floors from sub-grade levels upward into occupied levels iv. Include air relief vents for any elevator hoistways within the building v. Maintain a positive pressure in the residential space relative to the sub-grade parking levels The applicant may propose an alternative to the vapor membrane system along with sufficient evidence to conclude that the proposed alternative sufficiently reduces potential exposure of future occupants to vapor intrusion (e.g. designing to provide sufficient natural ventilation), or otherwise provide evidence to show that contamination screening levels do not warrant installation of a vapor membrane system or design alternative. Post construction indoor air monitoring shall be conducted for any vapor membrane system that is installed to sufficiently show that the system reduces the exposure of future residents to volatile organic compounds to below acceptable thresholds identified by other state and responsible agencies. CEQA only addresses impacts of the project on the environment, not impacts of the environment on the project. Therefore, the City does not make significance conclusions in accordance with CEQA related to the potential impacts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on future occupants of a site. Where a building is constructed over a site where VOCs are present, such as many of the sites within the California-Olive-Emerson Plume, the VOCs must be properly ventilated to ensure that they do not become entrapped in the building. Codifying this requirement ensures that all projects, even those that are ministerial, are required to comply with these safety precautions to protect future users. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. This Ordinance does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The project includes implementation of Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts on aesthetics and air quality for a project previously approved in accordance with CEQA and do not, in themselves, result in any potential environmental impacts. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on November 2, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 31, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Approve the ordinance with modified language or findings; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain Report Author & Contact Information PTC2 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Interim Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Ordinance Amending CEQA Review Chapter to Implement Comprehensive Plan EIR Mitigation Measures (PDF) • Attachment B: List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects (DOCX) • Attachment C: Resolution 9721 Comp Plan EIR Findings Resolution (PDF) • Attachment D: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Not Yet Approved DRAFT Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.31 (CEQA Review) to Amend the Chapter Title and Add a New Subsection 18.31.040 Establishing Environmental Review and Compliance Regulations for Development Projects to Implement the Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On November 13, 2017, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9721, certifying and making required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Among the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and MMRP were six mitigation measures that require the City to amend its local CEQA guidelines established in Chapter 18.31 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Ordinance implements these required mitigation measures. B. Five of the six mitigation measures address air quality impacts (Impact Air-2 and Impact Air-3). As identified in the EIR, Palo Alto is in a region that is in “nonattainment” for ozone and particulates and new development implemented under the Comprehensive Plan could considerably increase these pollutants and expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution. To reduce these cumulative air quality impacts, compliance with standard best management practices (BMPs) of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) by all new development projects, including those that may be subject to ministerial approval or may otherwise be exempt under CEQA, is appropriate and necessary to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the city and region. Requiring these BMPs for all development projects reduces air quality emissions, further protects biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources, and reduces noise impacts. C. The sixth mitigation measure addresses a potential aesthetic impact associated with shade and shadow from new development projects (Impact AES-4). As identified in the EIR, the MMRP and Resolution No. 9721, requiring project-level analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts and mitigation through feasible building and site design features will ensure appropriate disclosure and avoidance of potential impacts to the extent possible. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.31 (CEQA Review) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows, to modify the Chapter title and to add a new Section 18.31.040: Not Yet Approved DRAFT 2 [The modifications to the ordinance from the original ordinance are shown in strikethrough (deletions) and underlines (additions).] Chapter 18.31 CEQA REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Sections: 18.31.010 Delegation of CEQA Authority 18.31.020 Incorporation of State CEQA Guidelines 18.31.030 CEQA Appeals 18.31.040 Standard Environmental Measures for Development Projects 18.31.010 Delegation of CEQA Authority The Director or other decision maker as delegated in this Code shall have authority to make California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) decisions relating to planning and land use entitlements, except that any Environmental Impact Report requiring a statement of overriding considerations shall be considered by the City Council. For projects requiring a statement of overriding considerations, the Director shall refer any action on the entitlements to the City Council. 18.31.020 Incorporation of State CEQA Guidelines The full text of the State CEQA Guidelines adopted as 14 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq., and any subsequent amendments thereto, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Chapter. If there is a conflict between the procedural provisions of the State Guidelines and this Chapter, the more restrictive provision shall apply. 18.31.030 CEQA Appeals Any person may appeal to the City Council from the decision of a non-elected decision-making body or official of the City to certify an environmental impact report, approve a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration or determine that a project is not subject to Public Resources Code Section 21080 et seq. (California Environmental Quality Act) if that decision is not otherwise subject to further administrative review. Any such appeal must be filed on a form specified by the Director and must be filed within the same time period governing appeals of the underlying entitlement decision or within fourteen consecutive calendar days of the date that the environmental decision is made, if there is no appeal of the entitlement. The appellant shall state the specific reasons for the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by the required filing fee. Not Yet Approved DRAFT 3 18.31.040 Standard Environmental Measures for Development Projects A. All development projects shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10. B. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, including any building or grading permit, the applicant for a development project that meets or exceeds the screening levels for criteria air pollutants under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the Director of Planning a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. If any construction related criteria air pollutants exceeds the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction to below the thresholds. Any required mitigation measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents submitted to the City. C. Prior to the issuance of any planning entitlement and/or building permit, non-residential projects within the City that (1) will generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transportation refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City and comply with best practices recommended for implementation by BAAQMD to reduce toxic air contaminants. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the methodology described in the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects maintained by the Director of Planning. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant must identify reduction measures and demonstrate that the measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including identification of appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Any reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as requirements in the environmental review document or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. D. Prior to the issuance of any planning entitlement and/or building permit, any new industrial or warehousing project with the potential to generate new stationary or mobile sources of air toxics must prepare an analysis to determine whether the project would exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5. If the project is found to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, the applicant shall identify measures to reduce emissions in accordance with the BAAQMD recommendations to below the thresholds. E. With the exception of single family residences, any project that includes the construction of a new building(s) two-stories or taller, and located adjacent to public Not Yet Approved DRAFT 4 open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks), shall prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The analysis of the new building(s) shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. The analysis shall identify whether the project would shadow public open spaces during these times, explain how the project meets City design requirements, policies and goals, and describe ways to mitigate substantial shade and shadow impacts through feasible building and site design features. F. The BAAQMD measures, standards, and thresholds (collectively, “BAAQMD Standards”) referenced in the above subsections of this Section 18.31.040 may be amended from time to time. References to the BAAQMD Standards in this Section are to the BAAQMD Standards in effect at the time that the development application is reviewed and considered for approval. The BAAQMD Standards are described in the City’s List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects. G. The Director shall be authorized to promulgate, maintain and update the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects which may include a description of the applicable BAAQMD Standards including, but not limited to, screening levels, methodology for preparing the evaluation, thresholds of significance used for the evaluation, and the recommended mitigation, if required. H. All development shall comply with the List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects, to the extent that these measures are applicable to the development activity. I. Prior to demolition, vegetation removal, or construction of any new building or building addition, during the avian nesting season (February 15th through September 31st) on a site used for commercial, mixed-use, multi-family or open space and with existing mature trees, an avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey and document the findings of the survey in a report provided to the Director no more than 14 days prior to the start of work. J. During construction on any site in the city, if a previously unknown archaeological, cultural, or paleontological resource is unearthed, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist, historian or paleontologist, depending on the nature of the find, has evaluated the nature and significance and has determined appropriate protection for the resource. Protection may include such measures as avoidance or preparation of a Treatment Plan and curation of the resource. If the potential resource is identified as Native American in origin, a Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, shall be consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with appropriate Native American group(s). The plan would include Not Yet Approved DRAFT 5 avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative. K. For projects within the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume area, a vapor membrane system shall be installed to mitigate vapor intrusion and reduce exposure of future occupants in the basement and/or building above to volatile organic compounds. The vapor membrane system shall: i. Envelop the below grade portion of the proposed building, including areas below and above the groundwater table ii. Include a fan triggered by CO sensors for ventilation iii. Include an HVAC system to control air floors from sub-grade levels upward into occupied levels iv. Include air relief vents for any elevator hoistways within the building v. Maintain a positive pressure in the residential space relative to the sub-grade parking levels The applicant may propose an alternative to the vapor membrane system along with sufficient evidence to conclude that the proposed alternative sufficiently reduces potential exposure of future occupants to vapor intrusion (e.g. designing to provide sufficient natural ventilation), or otherwise provide evidence to show that contamination screening levels do not warrant installation of a vapor membrane system or design alternative. Post construction indoor air monitoring shall be conducted for any vapor membrane system that is installed to sufficiently show that the system reduces the exposure of future residents to volatile organic compounds to below acceptable thresholds identified by other state and responsible agencies. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. This Ordinance does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Not Yet Approved DRAFT 6 SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects As referenced in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.31.040, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to promulgate, maintain and update a List of Standard Requirements for Development Projects to reflect the most recent guidance from responsible agencies. The most recent list shall be made available on the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning website. This list is provided to assist applicants in determining the standards that must be implemented. The BAAQMD measures, standards, and thresholds (collectively, “BAAQMD Standards”) referenced in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.31.040 may be amended from time to time. References to the BAAQMD Standards in the Code are to the BAAQMD Standards in effect at the time that the development application is reviewed and considered for approval. BASIC CONSTRUCTION PM10 CONTROL MEASURES The following requirements in Table 1 are BAAQMD’s recommended measures for all proposed projects to reduce emissions of PM10 from construction activities. These measures reflect those identified in Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines dated May 2017. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.31.040, these measures shall be implemented for all development projects. Table 1: Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for ALL Proposed Projects 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS As discussed in PAMC Section 18.31.040(B), BAAQMD identifies screening criteria to determine whether construction emissions of criteria air pollutants would be potentially significant (i.e. exceed the recommended BAAQMD threshold). If a project meets the screening criteria, the project would not exceed the BAAQMD recommended threshold and therefore further analysis is not required. If a project does not meet the criteria, further analysis is required. Criteria air pollutants include Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The screening levels identified in this list are consistent with those outlined in Table 3-1 and Section 3.5.1, Construction Air Pollutants and Precursors, of BAAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, dated May 2017. Screening Criteria If the project is below the screening level size shown in Table 2 and the two criteria below are also met, the project would not exceed the thresholds of significance for construction. If the project exceeds these identified screening criteria, further analysis would be required to determine if the project exceeds the BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. 1. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction; and 2. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following: a. Demolition; b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously); c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development); d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity. Table 2: Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes Land Use Type Construction-Related Screening Size Single-family 114 du Apartment, low-rise 240 du Apartment, mid-rise 240 du Apartment, high-rise 249 du Condo/townhouse, general 240 du Condo/townhouse, high-rise 252 du Mobile home park 114 du Retirement community 114 du Congregate care facility 240 du Day-care center 277 ksf Elementary school 277 ksf Elementary school 3904 students Junior high school 277 ksf Junior high school 3261 students High school 277 ksf High school 3012 students Junior college (2 years) 277 ksf Junior college (2 years) 3012 students University/college (4 years) 3012 students Library 277 ksf Place of worship 277 ksf City park 67 acres Racquet club 277 ksf Racquetball/health 277 ksf Quality restaurant 277 ksf High turnover restaurant 277 ksf Fast food rest. w/ drive thru 277 ksf Fast food rest. w/o drive thru 277 ksf Hotel 554 rooms Motel 554 rooms Free-standing discount store 277 ksf Free-standing discount superstore 277 ksf (ROG) Discount club 277 ksf Regional shopping center 277 ksf Electronic Superstore 277 ksf Home improvement superstore 277 ksf Strip mall 277 ksf Hardware/paint store 277 ksf Supermarket 277 ksf Convenience market (24 hour) 277 ksf Convenience market with gas pumps 277 ksf Bank (with drive-through) 277 ksf General office building 277 ksf Office park 277 ksf Government office building 277 ksf Government (civic center) 277 ksf Pharmacy/drugstore w/ drive through 277 ksf Pharmacy/drugstore w/o drive through 277 ksf Medical office building 277 ksf Hospital 277 ksf Hospital 337 beds Warehouse 259 ksf General light industry 259 ksf General light industry 11 acres General light industry 540 employees General heavy industry 259 ksf General heavy industry 11 acres Industrial park 259 ksf Industrial park 11 acres Industrial park 577 employees Manufacturing 259 ksf Notes: du = dwelling units; ksf = thousand square feet; Screening levels include indirect and area source emissions. Emissions from engines (e.g., back-up generators) and industrial sources subject to Air District Rules and Regulations embedded in the land uses are not included in the screening estimates and must be added to the above land uses. Refer to Appendix D for support documentation. Source: Modeled by EDAW 2009. Methodology for the Evaluation and Thresholds of Significance Refer to section 8.1 of the BAAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, dated May 2017, for a step by step process to calculate construction related criteria pollutant generation. The basic steps include calculating emissions from fugitive dust, mobile sources, and off- gassing and obtaining the sum to determine total unmitigated emissions for ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Fugitive dust is not quantified unless the basic construction control measures for PM10 are not used. Because these are required in accordance with PAMC Section 18.31.040(A) these will not need to be quantified. The sum is then compared relative to the daily recommended thresholds identified by the BAAQMD. If they are found to exceed thresholds, the mitigation described below shall be implemented to reduce impacts. A summary of the appropriate steps is provided below in Table 3. Table 3: Example Construction Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Significance Determination Emissions (lb/day or tpy)* Step Emissions Source ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 2 Fugitive Dust Emissions - - - - Mobile Sources B B B B Off-gassing C - - - 3 Total Unmitigated Emissions B+C=D B+C=D B+C=D B+C=D 4 Total basic Mitigated Emissions E E E E BAAQMD Threshold 54 lb/day 54 lb/day 82 lb/day 54 lb/day 5 Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Is E > 54 lb/day? (If Yes, significant. Go to step 6. If No, less than significant) Is E > 54 lb/day? (If Yes, significant. Go to step 6. If No, less than significant) Is B* > 82 lb/day? (If Yes, significant. Go to step 6. If No, less than significant) Is B* > 54 lb/day? (If Yes, significant. Go to step 6. If No, less than significant) 6 Total Additional Mitigated Emissions F F F F 7 Additional Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Is F > 54 lb/day? (If Yes, significant and unavoidable. If No, less than significant with mitigation incorporated) Is F > 54 lb/day? (If Yes, significant and unavoidable. If No, less than significant with mitigation incorporated) Is F* > 82 lb/day? (If Yes, significant and unavoidable. If No, less than significant with mitigation incorporated) Is F* > 54 lb/day? (If Yes, significant and unavoidable. If No, less than significant with mitigation incorporated) * Applies to construction equipment exhaust only. Notes: tpy = tons per year.; lb/day = pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; Refer to Appendix D for support documentation. Recommended Mitigation If the proposed project still exceeds the BAAQMD recommended daily thresholds, the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be implemented. If, with implementation of this mitigation, the project still exceeds the thresholds, the project shall be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality from criteria pollutants. Table 4: Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. 10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 11. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 12. Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 13. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CANCER RISK If a health risk assessment (HRA) is required in accordance with PAMC Section 18.31.040(D), The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. As discussed in BAAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, dated May 2017, these procedures are outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA’s) guidance document, Health risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects, which can be found here: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8- 6-09.pdf If the health risk assessment concludes that incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, reduction measures must be identified and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to: o Restricting idling on‐site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. o Electrifying warehousing docks o Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. o Restricting off‐site truck travel through the creation of truck routes. 1 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Resolution No. 9721 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Certain Findings Concerning Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Comprehensive Plan Update, For Which an Environmental Impact Report Was Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act RECITALS A. The City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation (“City”) has prepared that certain comprehensive update to its general plan, entitled “Our Palo Alto 2030” (referred to herein as the “Comprehensive Plan Update”), proposed for approval and adoption by the City Council. B. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”). C. The City Council, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adopting and implementing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and associated zoning amendments. D. The environmental review process under CEQA commenced and was undertaken concurrently with the preparation and consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Update, which included the participation of a Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) that met for almost two years and hearings before the City Council to consider the CAC recommendations. This process allowed the Comprehensive Plan Update to take into account any potential environmental impacts identified in the EIR and include policies to address those impacts. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for the Comprehensive Plan Update was prepared analyzing four alternatives (also referred to as “scenarios”) in equal level of detail. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from February 5, 2016 to June 8, 2016, during which time the City held several public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR. F. During the Comprehensive Plan development and review process, the City Council directed the evaluation of two additional alternatives or scenarios, which were subsequently analyzed in a Supplement to the Draft EIR that was circulated for public review from February 10, 2017 to March 31, 2017, during which time the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission held additional public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR and the Supplement. G. After receiving the CAC’s recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City Council identified the parameters of the preferred alternative through several public hearings. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 2 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP H. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared, which Final Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the Draft EIR dated February 5, 2016, together with the Supplement to the Draft EIR dated February 10, 2017, and the Final Environmental Impact Report dated August 30, 2017 (collectively, all of said documents are referred to herein as the “EIR”). I. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto, on September 27, 2017, reviewed the EIR prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update (also sometimes referred to herein as the “Project”), held a public hearing, and recommended to the City Council that it certify and find the Final EIR was completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. J. Over three Council meetings, on October 23 and 30 and November 13, 2017, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update and EIR, and on November 13, 2017, certified the EIR in accordance with CEQA by adoption of Resolution No. 9720. K. The Council is the decision-making body for adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. L. 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: 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, and bases the findings stated below on such review. 2. The EIR provides an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the Comprehensive Plan Update Project. The City Council has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 3 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP 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 described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final 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. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) includes all mitigation measures adopted with respect to the Project and explains how and by whom they will be implemented and enforced. 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 Final EIR contains responses to comments received on a Draft EIR and a Supplement to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR also contains corrections and clarifications to the text and analysis of the Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR, where warranted. 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 DEIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR), (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented. 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 does hereby make the following findings 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. I. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS Significant effects of the Comprehensive Plan Update project were identified in the Draft EIR and the Supplement to 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 the Supplement to the Draft EIR. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for less than significant effects. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 4 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP 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: (a) 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: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. The “changes or alterations” referred to in §15091(a)(1) 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 avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or reducing the impact over time, or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources. II. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 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 adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Zoning Code amendments ("proposed project") and the means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the term “Environmental Impact Report” (EIR) means the Draft EIR, Supplement to the Draft EIR, and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 5 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP 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. Aesthetics Impact AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area and its surroundings. Mitigation Measure AES-1: To ensure that increased residential densities would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  High-quality building and site design.  Compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.  Enhancement of existing commercial centers.  Requirements for landscaping and street trees.  Preservation and creation of a safe and inviting pedestrian environment.  Appropriate building form, massing, and setbacks. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example:  Policy L-2.12: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens.  Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.  Policy L-4.5: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character.  Policy L-4.7: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill.  Policy L-4.8: Maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas.  Policy L-4.10: Recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale and architectural character while also DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 6 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP improving safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians and increasing the amount of bicycle parking.  Policy L-4.15: Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit and attractively landscaped.  Policy L-5.2: Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to include sidewalks, paths, low water use landscaping, recycled water and trees and remove grass turf in renovation and expansion projects.  Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.  Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility.  Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation.  Policy T-3.7: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details.  Policy T-3.8: Add planting pockets with street trees to provide shade, calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian realm.  Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.  Policy N-2.8: Require new commercial, multi-unit and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that future development and capital improvements under the proposed Plan would avoid significant degradation of the existing visual character and quality. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially shadow public open space (other than public open streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. Mitigation Measure AES-4: The City shall amend its local CEQA guidelines to require development projects of a certain size or location to prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The analysis shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. The analysis shall identify whether the project would shadow open spaces during these times, explain how the project meets City design requirements and other DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 7 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP City policy goals, and describe ways to mitigate substantial shade and shadow impacts through feasible building and site design features. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AES-4 would amend the City’s local CEQA guidelines to require project-level analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts, as well as measures to mitigate potential impacts through feasible building and site design features. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure the future development projects and capital improvement projects that are subject to CEQA would disclose and avoid potential shade/shadow impacts to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Air Quality Impact AIR-1: Without inclusion of air quality policies, implementation of the proposed Plan could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: To ensure consistency with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Reduction in emissions of particulates from automobiles, manufacturing, construction activity, and other sources (e.g., dry cleaning, wood burning, landscape maintenance).  Support for regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality.  Support for transit, bicycling, and walking.  Mix of uses (e.g., housing near employment centers) and development types (e.g., infill) to reduce the need to drive. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example:  Policy L-1.1: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space.  Policy L-2.1: Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street system.  Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents.  Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 8 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP types, such as studios, cohousing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing.  Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing near retail, employment, and transit.  Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail.  Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive.  Policy T-1.6: Encourage innovation and expanded transit access to regional destinations, multi-modal transit stations, employment centers and commercial centers, including those within Palo Alto through the use of efficient public and/or private transit options such as rideshare services, on-demand local shuttles and other first/last mile connections.  Policy T-1.16: Promote bicycle use as an alternative way to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops.  Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking.  Policy T-5.12: To promote bicycle use, increase the number of safe, attractive and well- designed bicycle parking spaces available in the city, including spots for diverse types of bicycles and associated equipment, including trailers, prioritizing heavily travelled areas such as commercial and retail centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural facilities, multi- modal transit facilities and ride share stops for bicycle parking infrastructure.  Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.  Policy N-5.1: Support regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area because of its critical importance to a healthy Palo Alto.  Policy N-5.2: Support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles.  Policy N-5.3: Reduce emissions of particulates from, manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burning, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers and other sources. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that future development projects and capital improvement projects under the proposed Plan will support emissions reductions, support air quality improvement programs, support alternative modes of transport, and support reduced driving. In this way, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would support BAAQMD’s implementation of control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 9 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Mitigation Measure AIR-2a: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines and Municipal Code to require, as part of the City’s development approval process, that future development projects to comply with the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). Mitigation Measure AIR-2b: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines to require that, prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction- related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8-3, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City. Mitigation Measure AIR-2c: To ensure that development projects that have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria air pollutants listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce regional air pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed Plan shall include policies that require compliance with BAAQMD requirements, including BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b. In addition, to reduce long-term air quality impacts by emphasizing walkable neighborhoods and supporting alternative modes of transportation, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections between commercial and mixed-use centers. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The City is located in a region that is in “nonattainment” for ozone and particulates. While the mitigation measures listed below would reduce emissions of these pollutants, they cannot eliminate Palo Alto’s contribution to regional air quality problems. Mitigation Measure AIR-2a would require adherence to the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 10 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Mitigation Measure AIR-2b would require implementation of BAAQMD-approved mitigation measures, if future development projects in Palo Alto could generate construction exhaust emissions in excess of the BAAQMD significance thresholds. An analysis of emissions generated from the construction of specific future projects under the proposed Plan would be required to evaluate emissions compared to BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds during individual environmental review. To implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2c, the proposed Plan includes Policy N-5.2 and would apply to future development projects and capital improvements projects that are subject to CEQA. Policy N-5.2 states: “Support the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures and health risk assessment requirements.” Through Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a and proposed Policy L-2.2, the City would ensure that future development projects and capital improvement projects: “Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents.” However, , analysis of post-mitigation conditions in the Supplement to the Draft EIR shows that implementation of transportation mitigation measures would nominally reduce emissions but would not reduce emissions below BAAQMD’s project- level thresholds, which, based on BAAQMD guidance, are generally used to determine if a project generates a substantial increase in emissions. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are available and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution. Mitigation Measure AIR-3a: The City of Palo Alto shall update its CEQA Procedures to require that future non-residential projects within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended for implementation by the BAAQMD. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to: DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 11 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.  Electrifying warehousing docks.  Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.  Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes. Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. Mitigation Measure AIR-3b: To ensure that new industrial and warehousing projects with the potential to generate new stationary and mobile sources of air toxics that exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, amend the City’s CEQA guidelines to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. Mitigation Measure AIR-3c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. Policies shall also require that new sensitive land use projects (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, parks or playgrounds, and day care centers) within 1,000 feet of a major stationary source of TACs and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicles per day consider potential health risks and incorporate adequate precautions, such as high-efficiency air filtration, into project design. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures AIR-3a and AIR-3b would ensure that mobile sources of TACs not covered under BAAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project- level environmental review and development of individual projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by BAAQMD. Mitigation Measures AIR-3c would ensure that potential health risks are considered for new sensitive land uses sited near potential sources of toxic air contaminants, and that adequate precautions are incorporated into such projects. The proposed Plan includes Policy N-5.5 to ensure exposure to pollutants and resulting health risks are considered during the siting of sensitive land uses: “Mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. When siting new sensitive receptors such as schools, day care facilities, parks or playgrounds, medical facilities and residences within 1,000’ of stationary sources of toxic air contaminants or roadways used by more than 10,000 vehicles per day, require projects to consider potential health risks and incorporate adequate precautions such as high-efficiency air filtration into project design.” Resulting Significance: Less than Significant DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 12 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Impact AIR-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan could create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors unless policies are integrated into the proposed Plan. Mitigation Measure AIR-4: To reduce odor impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies requiring:  Buffers, mechanical, and other mitigation methods to avoid creating a nuisance. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes Policy N-5.4 to ensure that future development projects and capital improvement projects do not result in objectionable odors: “All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants shall be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards.” This policy, along with CEQA review of projects using BAAQMD’s odor screening distances and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7, would ensure that odor impacts are minimized and reduced to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Cultural Resources Impact CULT-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: To ensure the protection of potentially historic resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Process for reviewing proposed demolition or alteration of potentially historic buildings.  Protection of archaeological resources. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy L-7.2: If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining features of the building. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 13 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Policy L-7.14: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the 19th century. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the potential historic resources would be considered for inclusion on State and federal registers prior to demolition or alteration, and that archaeological resources would be protected. Through implementation of these measures, the City would ensure the ongoing protection of potential historic and archaeological resources that have not already been identified and protected. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the City would maintain processes and procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of historic and archaeological resources, including important examples of California’s history and prehistory. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause damage to an important archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure CULT-3: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. In addition, to ensure that future development would not damage archaeological resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects.  Developer compliance with applicable regulations regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits, and unique geologic features.  Appropriate tribal consultation and consideration of tribal concerns. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy L-7.15: Appropriate tribal consultation and consideration of tribal concerns.  Policy L-7.16: Archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects.  Policy L-7.17: Developer compliance with applicable regulations regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits, or unique geologic features. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 14 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City would require archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects and capital improvement projects that are subject to CEQA review, as well as compliance with archaeological protection regulations and tribal consultation. Implementation of these policies would avoid significant impacts to archaeological resources. In addition, through implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the City would maintain processes and procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of archaeological resources. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measure CULT-5: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-3. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to require compliance with paleontological protection regulations. These policies would ensure that future development projects and capital improvement projects subject to CEQA would avoid significant impacts to paleontological resources and unique geologic features. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-7: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the City would maintain processes and procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of historic and archaeological resources. These processes and procedures would protect historic and archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to require archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects and capital improvement projects, as well as compliance with archaeological and paleontological protection regulations and tribal consultation. These policies would ensure that future projects avoid significant impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources and that the City’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 15 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-3: The proposed Plan would expose people or structures to the physical effects of climate change, including but not limited to flooding, extreme temperatures, public health, wildfire risk, or other impacts resulting from climate change, requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-3: To address the potential impacts associated with exposing people to the effects of climate change, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Monitoring and response to flooding risks caused by climate change-related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges.  Cooperative planning with federal, State, regional, and local public agencies on issues related to climate change (including sea level rise and extreme storms).  Preparation of response strategies to address sea level rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events, and other events related to climate change.  Implementation of adaptive strategies to address impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy N-4.12: Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical.  Policy N-8.2: With guidance from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its subsequent updates and other future planning efforts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and from the community.  Policy N-8.4: Continue to work with regional partners to build resiliency policy into City planning and capital projects, especially near the San Francisco Bay shoreline, while protecting the natural environment.  Program N8.4.1: Prepare response strategies that address sea level rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events and other events related to climate change. Include strategies to respond to the impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system.  Policy S-1.9: Design Palo Alto’s infrastructure system to protect the life and safety of residents, ensure resiliency in the face of disaster and minimize economic loss, including in the context of climate change and sea level rise.  Program S1.10.3: Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the LHMP, including those that address evolving hazards resulting from climate change.  Policy S-2.9: Prohibit new habitable basements in the development of single-family residential properties within 100-year flood zones of the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 16 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Policy S-2.10: Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change-related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides and storm surges.  Policy S-2.11: Support regional efforts to improve bay levees.  Program S2.11.1: Work cooperatively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide flood protection from high tide events on San Francisco Bay, taking into account the impacts of future sea level rise, to provide one percent (100-year) flood protection from tidal flooding, while being sensitive to preserving and protecting the natural environment.  Program S2.11.2: Work with regional, State, and federal agencies to develop additional adaptive strategies to address flood hazards to existing or new development and infrastructure, including environmentally sensitive levees. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City considers the impact of climate change when making future decisions about development projects and capital improvement projects. The programs listed above illustrate ways the City is engaging in planning and strategies to reduce the risks associated with the effects of climate change. The policies and programs collectively ensure that the City reduces potential climate change hazards to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Hydrology Impact HYD-2: The proposed Plan could substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Mitigation Measure HYD-2: To reduce potential impacts associated with construction dewatering the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Avoidance of the impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on the natural environment and safety.  Conservation of subsurface water resources.  Construction techniques and recharge strategies to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts.  Monitoring of dewatering and excavation projects.  Cooperation with other jurisdictions and regional agencies to protect groundwater.  Protection of groundwater as a natural resource. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy L-3.5: Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on adjacent properties, public resources and the natural environment. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 17 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Policy N-4.7: Ensure regulation of groundwater use to protect it as a natural resource and to preserve it as a potential water supply in the event of water scarcity.  Policy N-4.8: Conserve and maintain subsurface water resources by exploring ways to reduce the impacts of residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities.  Program N4.8.1: Research and promote new construction techniques and recharge strategies developed to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts and comply with City dewatering policies.  Program N4.8.2: Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for all dewatering and excavation projects to encourage maintaining groundwater levels and recharging of the aquifer where needed. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City would continue to work to reduce the environmental effects associated with construction dewatering, including impacts to adjacent properties and subsurface water resources. The programs listed above illustrate the City commitment to advancing these policies. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would also ensure cooperation with other agencies to protect groundwater resources and would reduce impacts to groundwater resources to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Land Use Impact LAND-1: The proposed Plan could adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area. Mitigation Measure LAND-1: To ensure that the intensity of future development would not adversely change the land use patterns or affect the livability of Palo Alto neighborhoods, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Strengthening of residential neighborhoods.  Vitality of commercial areas and public facilities.  High-quality building and site design.  Architectural compatibility of new development.  Compatible infill development.  Avoidance of abrupt changes in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy L-1.2: Maintain and strengthen Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.  Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 18 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.  Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.  Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility.  Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible.  Policy L-9.4: Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales.  Policy L-9.6: Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City will require development and capital improvements allowed under the proposed Plan to achieve high- quality design, architectural compatibility, and context-sensitive building design, strengthening residential and commercial areas and avoiding adverse effects associated with the type or intensity of land use patterns. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact LAND-2: The proposed Plan would allow development that could be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height. Mitigation Measure LAND-2: Implement Mitigation Measure LAND-1. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts to visual character and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Use of City procedures, plans, and requirements to ensure high-quality building design and architectural compatibility. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility.  Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 19 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City will require development projects and capital improvement projects to provide appropriate land use transitions and adhere to design requirements for compatibility and high-quality design, and to avoid adverse effects associated with incompatible land uses, effectively avoiding adverse effects associated with the intensity of planned land uses. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact LAND-5: The proposed Plan could physically divide an established community. Mitigation Measure LAND-5: To avoid potential impacts from physically dividing an established community, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Enhanced connections to and from parks, schools, and community facilities for all users.  Safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between residential areas and commercial centers.  Cooperation with other agencies to improve circulation connections.  Grade separation of rail crossings. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example:  Policy L-1.6: Use coordinated area plans to guide development in areas of Palo Alto where significant change is foreseeable. Address both land use and transportation, define the desired character and urban design traits of the areas, identify opportunities for public open space, parks and recreational opportunities, address connectivity to and compatibility with adjacent residential areas; and include broad community involvement in the planning process.  Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents.  Policy T-1.17: Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.  Policy T-1.21: Maintain pedestrian- and bicycle-only use of alleyways Downtown and in the California Avenue area where appropriate to provide connectivity between businesses and parking and transit stops, and consider public art in the alleyways as a way to encourage walking.  Policy T-3.2: Enhance connections to, from and between parks, community centers, recreation facilities, libraries and schools for all users.  Policy T-3.13: Work with Caltrans, Santa Clara County and VTA to improve east and west connections in Palo Alto and maintain a circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 20 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Policy T-3.15: Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority.  Policy T-8.12: Support the development of the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System, and other regional bicycle plans. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that future development projects and capital improvement projects will enhance connections with community facilities, improve safety for non-automotive connections, address grade separation of rail crossings, and involve cooperation with other agencies to improve circulation. City action consistent with these policies would improve accessibility throughout the city and ensure that established communities are not physically divided. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Noise Impact NOISE-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a: To ensure that average 24-hour noise levels associated with long-term operational noise would not increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments.  Use of the guidelines in the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” table in the proposed Plan to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments.  Clear guidelines for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas.  Adherence to the interior noise requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25).  Inclusion of a noise contour map in the proposed Plan.  Reduction of noise impacts of development on adjacent properties.  Evaluation of noise impacts on existing residential, open space, and conservation land.  Requirement for new projects in the Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from aircraft noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Compliance with the airport-related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments.  Prohibition of incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport, as established in the adopted County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from railway noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 21 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Minimization of noise spillover from rail-related activities into adjacent residential or noise- sensitive areas.  Building design that reduces impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations.  Guidelines for interior noise levels. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example:  Policy N-6.1: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in Table N-1 to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. Acceptable exterior, interior and ways to discern noise exposure include:  The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design.  Interior noise, per the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25), must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in all habitable rooms of all new dwelling units.  Policy N-6.2: Noise exposure(s) can be determined from (a) the noise contour map included in this plan, (b) more detailed noise exposure studies, or (c) on area-specific or project- specific noise measurements, as appropriate.  Policy N-6.5: Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties.  Policy N-6.7: While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels for the potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed.  Policy N-6.8: The City may require measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following:  Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 22 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property.  Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment.  Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer between noise sources and adjacent dwellings.  Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering design, safety and other impacts.  Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically rated windows/doors.  Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling.  Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.  Policy N-6.9: Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing or Planned Community districts to submit an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit.  Policy N-6.12: Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-1, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport.  Policy N-6.13: Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas.  Policy N-6.14: Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future habitable buildings use necessary design elements such as setbacks, landscaped berms and soundwalls to keep interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn and ground-borne vibration levels below 72 VdB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a incorporates policies into the proposed Plan to require adherence to noise guidelines, reduce potential noise impacts for adjacent properties, ensuring that long- term operational noise in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to require compliance with airport-related compatibility standards and prohibit development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of the Palo Alto Airport, ensuring that new sensitive receptors are not exposed to unacceptable levels of noise from operation of the Palo Alto Airport. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to address impacts associated with rail operations and require interior noise level guidelines and vibration impact analyses, ensuring that new construction near the rail corridor is adequate to address railway noise and vibration, to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 23 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that noise levels in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels and ensure that new noise sources would be controlled and/or mitigated so as to comply with City standards. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause an increase of 3 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that noise levels in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels and would ensure that new noise sources would be controlled and/or mitigated so as to comply with City standards. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a. Mitigation Measure NOISE-4b: The Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan shall be maintained. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that long-term operational noise in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels by maintaining the City’s Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines, which would be used to evaluate new development projects and capital improvement projects. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 24 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Impact NOISE-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOISE-5a: To ensure that future development would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies that limit the hours of construction around sensitive receptors, and require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting throughout the construction process for larger development projects, as well as the use of pertinent industry standards and City guidelines to avoid significant vibration impacts during construction or operations. Mitigation Measure NOISE-5b: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy and program that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects:  Policy N-6.11: Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment.  Program N6.11.1: For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require a vibration impact analysis, as well as formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process, pertinent to industry standards. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. The incorporation of this policy and program into the proposed Plan requires vibration analyses and vibration mitigation plans, as well as limits for vibration around vibration-sensitive receptors. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-6: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of established State standards. Mitigation Measure NOISE-6: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that new land uses would be reviewed for compatibility with their surroundings and would not increase noise by unacceptable levels, and Mitigation DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 25 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Measure NOISE-4b would be implemented by maintaining the City’s Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines in the proposed Plan. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Mitigation Measure NOISE-7: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that residential areas would not be affected by new noise sources and would maintain the City’s Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan could result in a potentially substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measure NOISE-8: To ensure that future development would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors from construction noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Construction noise limits around sensitive receptors.  Monitoring and reporting plans for construction noise levels of larger development projects.  Noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy and program that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects:  Policy N-6.11: Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment.  Program N6.11.1: For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require a vibration impact analysis, as well as formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 26 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP entire construction process, pertinent to industry standards. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. The incorporation of this policy and program into the proposed Plan limits construction noise around sensitive receptors, requires monitoring and reporting plans for construction noise of larger development projects, and requires noise control measures, reducing temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise levels to less-than-significant levels. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-11: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, may result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise. Mitigation Measure NOISE-11a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. Mitigation Measure NOISE-11b: To address overall community noise impacts from train noise to the extent such noise is within the City’s control and in excess of established State and/or City standards, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Efforts to develop and implement technological methods to reduce train whistle noise from Caltrain.  Evaluation of at-grade rail crossings as potential Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines.  Grade separation of rail crossings as a City priority. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that would collectively implement this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example:  Policy T-3.15: Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority.  Policy N-6.13: Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas.  Program N6.13.1: Encourage the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Board to pursue technologies and grade separations that would reduce or eliminate the need for train horns/whistles in communities served by rail service.  Program N6.13.2: Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 27 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP The incorporation of these policies and programs into the proposed Plan ensures the City’s focus on methods to reduce train whistle noise from Caltrain, evaluation of at-grade crossings as potential Quiet Zones, and the prioritization of grade separation. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c would address new sources of noise in existing residential areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1c and NOISE-11b would minimize the possibility for community-wide ambient noise increases due to cumulative sources to the extent feasible. After implementation of the new policies and mitigation measures, impacts from cumulative noise increases would be considered less than significant. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Public Services Impact PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards. Mitigation Measure PS-7: To address the potential physical impacts of park construction/improvement, the Comprehensive Plan Update shall include policies that achieve the following:  Evaluation and mitigation of the construction impacts associated with park and recreational facility creation and expansion. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy that ensures implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects:  Policy N-1.13: Evaluate and mitigate the construction impacts associated with park and recreational facility creation and expansion. The incorporation of this policy into the proposed Plan requires evaluation and mitigation of construction impacts associated with the creation or expansion of park and recreational facilities. Facility construction projects developed consistent with this policy would avoid adverse physical impacts to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in substantial cumulative adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities, need for new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Mitigation Measure PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 28 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-7 would ensure that facility construction projects developed consistent with referenced policies would avoid adverse physical impacts to the extent feasible. Therefore, the creation of new parkland would not contribute to potential significant cumulative impacts associated with new park construction. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Transportation Impact TRANS-1: Implementation of the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing motor vehicle traffic, with the goal of achieving no net increase in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from new development, with an exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground-floor retail and below-market-rate housing). The program should, at a minimum, require new development projects above a specific size threshold to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and size. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated.  45 percent reduction in the Downtown district  35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area  30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park  30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor  20 percent reduction in other areas of the city TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner or the project proponent on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue if targets are not met and may achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b: Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak-hour motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle traffic congestion. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to ensure collaboration with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, and identification and pursuit of funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. Policies shall support grade separation of DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 29 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority, and the undertaking of studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d: Consistent with State requirements, the City shall adopt a Multimodal Improvement Plan to address impacts to Congestion Management Program facilities. In addition, the proposed Plan shall include policies to engage in regional transportation planning and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue-jump lanes and curbside platforms, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and additional VTA bus service. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1e: The proposed Plan shall include policies to encourage the PAUSD to analyze decisions regarding school assignments to reduce peak-period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites. Finding: Palo Alto is located in a dynamic region with a transportation network that is often quite congested. In this context, even small changes over time can contribute to significant traffic congestion. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of the City’s review of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example:  Program T1.2.2: Formalize TDM requirements by ordinance and require new developments above a certain size threshold to prepare and implement a TDM Plan to meet specific performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for enforcement with meaningful penalties for noncompliance. The ordinance should also:  Establish a list of effective TDM measures that include transit promotion, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycle lockers and showers, shuttles to Caltrain, requiring TMA membership and education and outreach to support the use of these modes.  Allow property owners to achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control.  Provide a system for incorporating alternative measures as new ideas for TDM are developed.  Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of peak hour motor vehicle trips. TDM measures should at a minimum achieve the following reduction in peak hour motor vehicle trips, with a focus on single-occupant vehicle trips. Reductions should be based on the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category: DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 30 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP - 50 percent reduction in the Downtown district - 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area - 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park - 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor - 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city  Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak- hour motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion.  Policy T-2.6: Work with PAUSD to ensure that decisions regarding school assignments are analyzed to reduce peak period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites.  Policy T-3.15: Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority.  Program T3.15.1: Undertake studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project and strongly advocate for adequate State, regional and federal funding for design and construction of railroad grade separations.  Policy T-8.1: Engage in regional transportation planning and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue jumping and curbside platforms, HOV/HOT lanes and additional VTA bus service.  Policy T-8.2: Participate in regional planning initiatives for the rail corridor and provide a strong guiding voice. Implementation of the TDM measures and other measures to reduce driving under Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a through TRANS-1e would result in a lower auto mode share, higher number of transit trips, lower VMT, and lower VMT per capita compared to pre-mitigation conditions. However, affected intersections are operating close to or below LOS standards under existing conditions, so even small increases in traffic at these intersections would trigger impacts. Under Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d, the City will prepare and adopt a Multimodal Improvement Plan to address impacts to Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The EIR identifies significant impacts at three intersections included in the County’s CMP: El Camino Real (State Route 82) at San Antonio Road (in Mountain View) (referred to as Intersection #8 in the EIR analysis), Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard at Page Mill Road (Intersection #9), and Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road (Intersection #10). VTA’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA) guidelines state that, “Deficiency plans should be prepared by the Member Agency in which the deficient CMP System facility or set of facilities is located.” Multimodal Improvement Plan requirements will be met for these three intersections as follows: Intersection #8 (El Camino Real at San Antonio Road) is located in Mountain View and Los Altos. Therefore, planning for the intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto. The City of Mountain View is currently drafting a Multimodal Improvement Plan that includes this intersection and can and should adopt the Multimodal Improvement Plan when it is complete. As required by VTA, acting as the Congestion Management Agency (“CMA”), the City of Palo Alto will participate in development of this Multimodal Improvement Plan. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 31 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Intersection #9 (Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard at Page Mill Road) is located within the city but is under the County’s jurisdiction. This intersection was grandfathered in with an automobile LOS of F in 1991. Freeway segments and congestion management program (CMP) intersections that operated at LOS F when monitoring began in 1991 are considered exempt from meeting the CMP standard. Therefore, it is exempt from the requirement to prepare a Multimodal Improvement Plan. Intersection #10 (Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road) is located within the city but is under the County’s jurisdiction. The City of Palo Alto will be adopting a new Transportation Nexus Study and Transportation Impact Fee shortly after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the certification of the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR. This nexus study, and impact fee calculation, will address the City’s share of a full grade-separation at this intersection. Preliminary designs and cost estimates for this grade-separation project have been developed by the Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports. With the construction of this project, this intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service, and no longer require the development of a Multimodal Improvement Plan. All of the above traffic mitigation measures would reduce, but not eliminate, Impact TRANS-1. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. Mitigation Measure TRANS-3a: The City shall require new development projects to prepare and implement TDM programs, as described in TRANS-1a. TDM programs for worksites may include measures such as private bus services and free shuttle services to transit stations geared towards commuters. Mitigation Measure TRANS-3b: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies that advocate for efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing freeway facilities consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. Policies shall support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring, and control systems that provide non-intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. Policies shall support, where appropriate, the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. Finding: Palo Alto is located in a dynamic region with a transportation network that is often quite congested. In this context, even small changes over time can contribute to significant traffic congestion. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 32 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example:  Policy T-8.6: Advocate for efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing freeway facilities consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives.  Policy T-8.7: Support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring and control systems that provide non-intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion.  Policy T-8.8: Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and HOV lanes or Express/HOT lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. The TDM measures called for in Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-3b, which include a TDM mitigation program and other measures, would reduce but not eliminate the impacts on freeway segments. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. Mitigation Measure TRANS-6: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to collaborate with transit agencies in planning for and implementing convenient, efficient, coordinated, and effective bus service. Finding: Palo Alto is located in a dynamic region with a transportation network that is often quite congested. In this context, even small changes over time can contribute to significant traffic congestion. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy that ensures implementation of this mitigation measure:  Policy T-1.12: Collaborate with transit agencies in planning and implementing convenient, efficient, coordinated and effective bus service in Palo Alto that addresses the needs of all segments of our population. The incorporation of this policy into the proposed Plan ensures that the City would pursue methods to give priority to buses and transit facilities. Even with implementation of Mitigation DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 33 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Measure TRANS-6, congestion at all intersections and on all roadway segments where buses operate would not be eliminated. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact TRANS-8: Implementation of the project would create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets. Mitigation Measure TRANS-8: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy that ensures implementation of this mitigation measure:  Policy T-4.3: Identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-8 would ensure that the City pursues improvements to reduce the use of local streets as bypass routes to avoid congestion on arterials. The EIR notes that implementation of traffic calming is highly site-specific, depending on the physical characteristics of the street, the circulation pattern of a neighborhood, and whether the residents support specific measures, among many other factors. It is not possible at the Comprehensive Plan level to determine where traffic calming measures would be appropriate or feasible or which specific measures should be implemented along a given roadway or at a given intersection. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact TRANS-9: Implementation of the project would create an operational safety hazard. Mitigation Measure TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: Under Mitigation Measure TRANS-8, the City would pursue improvements to reduce the use of local streets as bypass routes to avoid congestion on arterials. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that safety hazards associated with through traffic are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Utilities DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 34 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Impact UTIL-15: Without the adoption of policies to promote recycling and conservation, the proposed Plan could potentially fall out of compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation Measure UTIL-15: To ensure that future development would comply with applicable solid waste regulations, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Ninety-five percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste.  Reduced solid waste generation.  Use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, through enforcement of the 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion.  Enhanced recycling and composting programs for all waste generators. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy S-3.8: Strive for 95 percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste, by enhancing policies and programs for waste reduction, recycling, composting and reuse.  Policy S-3.9: Reduce solid waste generation through requiring salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials.  Policy S-3.11: Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable and repairable goods, and discourage the use of single use plastic water bottles and extended polystyrene (Styrofoam), through enforcement of the City’s 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion and continued incentives, education and responsible City purchasing policies. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures the City’s ongoing commitment to recycling and conservation in compliance with federal, State, and local laws. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-15 would ensure that the City complies with applicable solid waste regulations. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact UTIL-17: The proposed Plan would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities. However, without the adoption of policies in support of energy efficiency and conservation, the proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measure UTIL-17: To ensure that future development would maximize energy efficiency and conservation the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Maximized conservation and efficient use of energy.  Continued procurement of carbon-neutral energy.  Investment in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs.  Provision of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency.  Use of cost-effective energy conservation measures in City projects and practices. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 35 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Adherence to State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies.  Consideration of a transition to a carbon-neutral natural gas supply. Finding: 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. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example:  Policy N-7.1: Continue to procure carbon neutral energy for both long-term and short-term energy supplies, including renewable and hydroelectric resources, while investing in cost- effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs.  Policy N-7.4: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of energy in new and existing residences and other buildings in Palo Alto.  Program N7.4.1: Continue timely incorporation of State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations and procedures and higher local efficiency standards that are cost-effective.  Program N7.4.3: Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation measures into construction, maintenance and City operation and procurement practices.  Program N7.4.5: Continue to provide public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency.  Program N7.7.1: Evaluate the potential for a cost-effective plan for transitioning to a completely carbon-neutral natural gas supply.  Policy N-7.8: Support opportunities to maximize energy recovery from organic materials such as food scraps, yard trimmings and residual solids from sewage treatment.  Policy S-3.10: Continue to implement the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy and programs to reduce waste, toxic product use, resource consumption and to maximize energy efficiency. The incorporation of relevant policies and programs into the proposed Plan ensures that the City will continue its ongoing commitment to energy efficiency and conservation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-17 would ensure that the City is engaging in planning to reduce natural gas and electricity demands in order to reduce potential impacts associated with the construction of energy supply facilities. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant III. FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES Significant and Unavoidable Impacts CEQA provides that decision-makers should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA Section 21002). The EIR identified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce several of the potentially significant impacts to less than significant, as further set forth in the Section II findings above. However, the following impacts DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 36 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP in the EIR remain significant after mitigation (i.e., significant and unavoidable) and no feasible mitigation or project alternative is identified to reduce impact to less than significant: 1. Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 2. Impact TRANS-1: Implementation of the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. 3. Impact TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. 4. Impact TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. All of these significant and unavoidable impacts arise from Palo Alto’s place within a growing region where traffic increases are projected due to forces well beyond the City’s control. Evaluations of virtually any long-range plan developed in this region would reach similar conclusions using the thresholds of significance relied upon in the City’s environmental documents. And even if the City does not update its Comprehensive Plan (as represented by EIR Scenario 1), these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after the City’s best efforts at mitigation. In compliance with CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasible alternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR for the proposed project to less than significant. Project Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project ..." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). “If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision-maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, ... make the project alternative infeasible.” (CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3).) The City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to alternatives. The project objectives are set forth in Chapter 3 of the Supplement to the Draft EIR. As explained in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR and referenced sections of the February 2016 Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR, the City has assessed a “range of reasonable alternatives” throughout the environmental document, in the form of four planning scenarios DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 37 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP (in the Draft EIR), two additional planning scenarios (in the Supplement to the Draft EIR), and a hybrid “preferred scenario” (in the Final EIR). In addition, Chapter 6 of the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR discuss a “No Growth Scenario” and an “Environmentally Superior Alternative,” and both the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR discuss alternatives considered and rejected, with an explanation as to why certain concepts were not carried forward for detailed analysis. As further set forth below, the City Council has considered all of the possible alternatives (including the planning scenarios) identified and analyzed in EIR and has elected to adopt the preferred scenario described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR. None of the other scenarios and alternatives would eliminate the significant impacts identified above, and the City finds that doing so would be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.) 1. No Project Alternative (Scenario 1) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that a "No Project Alternative" be evaluated as part of an EIR. Scenario 1 represents a “Business as Usual” scenario that approximates what is expected to occur if the 1998 Comprehensive Plan is not updated and the proposed Plan is not adopted. Thus Scenario 1 represents the “no project alternative” required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). Scenario 1 would be expected to result in less residential development than the preferred scenario, but would result in a higher increase in employment than the preferred scenario. As shown in Table 1-3 of the Supplement to the Draft EIR, Scenario 1 would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the scenarios. Scenario 1 would also not include any of the policy adjustments included in the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, new innovations in housing or new approaches to address the high cost of housing or high jobs-to-employed-residents balance in the city. Under Scenario 1, the Comprehensive Plan would also not be updated to include new policies related to climate change, transportation demand management (TDM), and transit-oriented development. Without policies to address these key issues, Scenario 1 would not fully achieve the City’s objectives to updates the vision for Palo Alto’s future to reflect current conditions and anticipated trends. Finding: The City Council considered a No Project Alterative and declines to adopt it because it does not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts and is inconsistent with several of the project objectives including:  Provide a legally adequate Comprehensive Plan that updates the vision for Palo Alto’s future to reflect current conditions and anticipated trends.  Establish performance standards to ensure that future development contributes to and does not detract from Palo Alto’s quality of life. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 38 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP  Identify needed roadway improvements to address congestion related to future development.  Enable resiliency and adaptation to respond to the consequences of climate change.  Support Palo Alto’s leadership in relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and State and regional agencies. A comprehensive plan is intended to be an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of city policies. State law requires that comprehensive plans be periodically reviewed and revised as necessary (Government Code Sections 65040.5, 65300, 65300.5). Retaining the current comprehensive plan, last comprehensively updated in 1998, without an update to reflect changes in the City’s vision for its development and preservation would not be consistent with State planning law. For all of these reasons, this alternative is infeasible, as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project. 2. No Growth Scenario Appendix H of the Supplement to the Draft EIR provides a discussion and analysis of a “No Growth Scenario,” conducted as a purely hypothetical exercise to highlight the extent to which the proposed Plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts result from regional growth outside of Palo Alto. The No Growth Scenario analysis assumes that the proposed Plan is not adopted and that no growth in population, employment, or square footage would occur in Palo Alto by 2030 beyond the amount of development existing in 2014, plus new growth permitted by fall 2016. Although the No Growth Scenario would result in less development than the preferred scenario, as discussed in Appendix H of the Supplement to the Draft EIR, the No Growth Scenario would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the project. This illustrates that, even if Palo Alto were to put measures in place to halt future growth entirely, the surrounding region would continue to grow, and as a result many of the impacts identified in the EIR would still occur. The No Growth Scenario is purely hypothetical and would not include strategies to address housing needs, climate change goals, or TDM strategies. Therefore, the No Growth Scenario would not meet the project objectives. Moreover, it is infeasible to implement, as it would be impractical and/or illegal for the City to prevent existing residents from adding to their households or families, and stopping residential growth would violate State housing laws that require local governments to participate in “accommodat[ing] the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels” (California Government Code Section 65580 et seq.). In terms of job growth, while the City could conceivably prevent development of additional non-residential square footage, it would be very difficult to stop employers from adding new employees to existing buildings, and such a moratorium would create intense demand for office space in Palo Alto, increasing commercial rents and creating pressure for non-residential uses such as retail/service business and lower-rent office uses to convert to high-rent, tech-based office and research and development (R&D) uses. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 39 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Finding: The City Council considered the No Growth Scenario and declines to adopt it because it is infeasible, does not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, and is inconsistent with several of the project objectives, including:  Provide a legally adequate Comprehensive Plan that updates the vision for Palo Alto’s future to reflect current conditions and anticipated trends.  Guide future land use and development decisions and assist staff and decision-makers in balancing sometimes competing interests.  Address the needs of a changing population and accommodate additional housing.  Establish performance standards to ensure that future development contributes to and does not detract from Palo Alto’s quality of life.  Reduce the impacts of cars on the environment and improve options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit-users.  Preserve existing single-family neighborhoods while allowing the development of diverse types of housing affordable to all members of the community.  Identify needed roadway improvements to address congestion related to future development.  Enable resiliency and adaptation to respond to the consequences of climate change.  Enable the City to deliver top-quality community services to all residents.  Retain existing businesses, maintain vital commercial areas, and attract quality new businesses.  Support Palo Alto’s leadership in relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and State and regional agencies. For all of these reasons, this alternative is infeasible, as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project. 3. Hybrid Alternative Chapter 6 of the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR provide a discussion of a “Hybrid Alternative.” The discussion of the Hybrid Alternative explains that the scenario adopted by the City as the Comprehensive Plan Update would not be expected to be identical to any of the scenarios analyzed in the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR, but would rather draw from the scenarios and combine components of various scenarios. The discussion also explains that the Hybrid Alternative would be developed based, in part, on the data and analysis that the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR provide. Based on the EIR’s conclusions, the Supplement to the Draft EIR states that a Hybrid Alternative would likely be one that combines the moderate rates of housing growth in Scenarios 3 and 5 with the sustainability initiatives tested in Scenarios 4 through 6. The Supplement to the Draft EIR did not predict the number of jobs that would be included in the Hybrid Alternative, but did explain that a lower level of job growth, such as under Scenario 5, would result in fewer GHG emissions. Overall, the Hybrid Alternative would have impacts similar to those of Scenarios 1 through 6. Aesthetics, land use, and population/housing impacts would be similar to Scenarios 3 and 5 if housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino are eliminated and replaced by higher DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 40 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP densities on existing sites closer to transit and services, and if growth control measures are similar to those adopted by the City Council on an interim basis in 2015. The Hybrid Alternative would also have similar less-than-significant impacts to Scenario 2, 3, or 5 in the topic areas of biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazardous materials, hydrology, public services, and utilities. The Hybrid Alternative could further reduce the transportation, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with Scenario 3 by incorporating some of the sustainability features included in Scenarios 4 through 6 to reduce traffic and vehicle miles traveled. Although, as with Scenarios 1 through 6, proposed mitigation measures could address some of the Hybrid Alternative’s impacts related to transportation, air quality, and noise, some impacts related to transportation and air quality, although reduced, would remain significant even after mitigation measures are applied. The Hybrid Alternative contemplates lower levels of job growth than the preferred scenario, but it also includes lower rates of housing growth than the preferred scenario, so the Hybrid Alternative would be expected to result in a higher jobs-to- employed-residents ratio than the preferred scenario, and therefore would not meet the City’s goals to reduce this ratio. Finding: The City Council considered the Hybrid Alternative and declines to adopt it because it does not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts and it does not promote as well as the preferred scenario the City’s policy goals and objectives of accommodating anticipated housing growth and improving the City’s jobs to housing (employed resident) imbalance, all as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project. 4. Planning Scenarios 2 Through 6 Scenarios 2 through 6 in the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR are part of the reasonable range of alternatives the City has considered because they present different ways that the City could plan for its future and vary in terms of the housing and employment projected to occur by the horizon year of 2030. The preferred scenario that has been selected for adoption shares many characteristics with these other planning scenarios, and was developed by the City Council based on extensive community input and deliberations. As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR, the preferred scenario is essentially a hybrid of the other Scenarios, and represents the evolution of a long public planning process. There are not substantial differences in the number or extent of environmental impacts among the scenarios evaluated in the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR. While the majority of potential impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, all of the scenarios would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and transportation, and the preferred scenario would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts. However, there are differences of degree among the scenarios, as described below. A. Scenario 2 Although similar to the preferred scenario, Scenario 2 would result in slightly lower motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 2 would also result in a lower level of population and jobs growth. Therefore, Scenario 2 would result in lower greenhouse gas and air DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 41 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP quality emissions than the preferred scenario. However, Scenario 2 would result in a greater jobs/housing imbalance than the preferred scenario and would not meet the City’s goal to expand housing options as well as the preferred scenario. B. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 would result in more motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 3 would result in a level of population growth equal to the lower end of the preferred scenario, and a higher level of job growth. Therefore, Scenario 3 would result in higher levels of greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. Overall, Scenario 3 would result in a greater jobs/housing imbalance than the preferred scenario and would not meet the City’s sustainability goals as well as the preferred scenario. C. Scenario 4 Scenario 4 would result in lower motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 4 would result in a level of population growth equal to the higher end of the preferred scenario, and a higher level of job growth. Overall, due to its lower motor vehicle trips, Scenario 4 would be expected to result in lower greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. However, Scenario 4 would result in a greater jobs/housing imbalance than the preferred scenario, which would conflict with City goals. D. Scenario 5 Scenario 5 would result in the fewest motor vehicle trips of all the scenarios (including the preferred scenario). Scenario 5 would result in a level of population growth equal to the lower end of the preferred scenario, and less jobs growth than the preferred scenario. Overall, Scenario 5 would result in a similar jobs/housing balance as the preferred scenario (slightly higher than the preferred scenario within the city but lower within the city plus Sphere of Influence). In addition, Scenario 5 would include the sustainability measures of Scenarios 4 and 6. Overall, due to its lower motor vehicle trips, lower overall growth, and similar jobs/housing balance, Scenario 5 would be expected to result in lower greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. By combining the rigorous sustainability initiatives of Scenarios 4 and 6 with the modest housing growth of Scenario 3 and low job growth of Scenario 6, Scenario 5 would be the environmentally preferred scenario. However, Scenario 5 would not meet the City’s goals to expand housing options. E. Scenario 6 Scenario 6 would result in lower motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 6 would result in more population growth and less jobs growth than the preferred scenario and would achieve the lowest jobs-to-employed-residents ratio of all the scenarios (including the preferred scenario). In addition, Scenario 6 would include the sustainability measures of Scenarios 4 and 5. Overall, due to its lower motor vehicle trips and jobs/housing balance, Scenario 6 would be expected to result in lower greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. Scenario 6 would have the highest population growth of any scenario, exceeding regional projections and resulting in the greatest demand for schools, parkland, and services provided to residents. As a result, Scenario 6 would not meet the project objective regarding service delivery as well as the preferred scenario. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 42 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP Finding: The City Council considered Scenarios 2 through 6 and declines to adopt any of these scenarios. Scenario 3 would not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Scenarios 2, 4, 5, and 6 would somewhat lessen, but would not avoid, the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, but are less responsive to the project objectives than the preferred scenario, particularly to the objective to address the needs of a changing population, accommodating additional housing, and enabling delivery of top-quality community services to all residents. IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated benefits of the Project. General. The City is considering approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2030 (“proposed project”). CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable, and the agency must state the specific reasons to support the action in a “statement of overriding considerations” supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15903). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project in connection with approval of the project. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the EIR and implemented with future development and actions taken under the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it significant and unavoidable environmental effects, as identified in the EIR. Adoption of the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2030, with the specific changes included in the City Council’s resolution, would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: 5. Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 6. Impact TRANS-1: Implementation of the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. 7. Impact TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 43 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP 8. Impact TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. Overriding Considerations The City Council has carefully considered each significant unavoidable project impact in reaching its decision to approve the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that the identified significant adverse impacts for the project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits that outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable impacts and support approval of the project. Any one of these benefits as set forth below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits is in the record as a whole. The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The City finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record. Economic Benefits 1. The proposed Plan strengthens strategies to preserve retail. 2. The proposed Plan includes a cumulative “cap” on the amount of new office/research and development (R&D) space that would allow up to 1.7 million square feet of new office/R&D uses over the life of the plan. 3. The proposed Plan allows the City to remain a competitive and innovative business destination. Legal Benefits 1. The proposed Plan updates sections of the City’s Comprehensive Plan that are required by State law, and the State recommends that local jurisdictions update their plans every 10 years. Social Benefits 1. The proposed Plan was developed to reflect community priorities and concerns, with extensive input from the general public, a Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council. 2. The proposed Plan responds to community concerns about housing affordability and availability. DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 44 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP 3. The proposed Plan would allow a balance of development that would help to reduce the City’s jobs/housing imbalance. 4. The proposed Plan would preserve existing parks, recreational facilities, and open space areas. 5. The proposed Plan would protect and preserve existing residential neighborhoods. Technological Benefits 1. The proposed Plan supports Caltrain modernization, including electrification. Environmental Benefits 1. The proposed Plan updates the City’s policy framework to address important contemporary environmental issues, including as climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. 2. The proposed Plan includes a program to formalize transportation demand management (TDM) requirements. 3. The proposed Plan would protect and enhance the urban forest as natural infrastructure. 4. The proposed Plan concentrates growth in existing corridors and nodes, and thereby results in fewer impacts from the construction of new infrastructure and reduces vehicle miles traveled per capita, which translates into air quality and greenhouse gas emissions benefits and increases in resources and energy efficiency. 5. The proposed Plan includes policies that encourage conservation of water and energy resources in conformance with the City’s sustainability goals. V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated and adopted as part of this Resolution herein is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project required under Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The MMRP identifies impacts of the Project, corresponding mitigation, timing for implementation, and designation for responsibility for mitigation implementation and monitoring. // // // // // // // DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F 45 171128 SL/PCE PLANNING/COMP PLAN 2017/RESO ADOPTING MMRP VI. 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, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director at the same address. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 13, 2017 AYES: FINE, KNISS, SCHARFF, TANAKA, WOLBACH NOES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, HOLMAN, KOU ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ _________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ City Manager _______________________________ Assistant City Attorney _________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment DocuSign Envelope ID: FC1D7519-2530-42F5-9EBE-3B6D0199951F PLACEWORKS 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Palo Alto is intended to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The proposed project is the adoption and implementation of an updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Palo Alto, along with associated amendments to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code. The MMRP includes the following information: A list of mitigation measures. The timing for implementation of each mitigation measure. The agency responsible for monitoring implementation. The monitoring action and frequency. The City of Palo Alto must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it adopts the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Zoning Code amendments with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project adoption. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Aesthetics and Visual Resources AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area and its surroundings. AES-1: To ensure that increased residential densities would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: High-quality building and site design. Compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Enhancement of existing commercial centers. Requirements for landscaping and street trees. Preservation and creation of a safe and inviting pedestrian environment. Appropriate building form, massing, and setbacks. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially shadow public open space (other than public open streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. AES-4: The City shall amend its local CEQA guidelines to require development projects of a certain size or location to prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The analysis shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. The analysis shall identify whether the project would shadow open spaces during these times, explain how the project meets City design requirements and other City policy goals, and describe ways to mitigate substantial shade and shadow impacts through feasible building and site design features. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of proposed Comprehensive Plan adoption City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA guidelines. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Air Quality AIR-1: Without inclusion of air quality policies, implementation of the proposed Plan could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AIR-1: To ensure consistency with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Reduction in emissions of particulates from automobiles, manufacturing, construction activity, and other sources (e.g., dry cleaning, wood burning, landscape maintenance).  Support for regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality.  Support for transit, bicycling, and walking.  Mix of uses (e.g., housing near employment centers) and development types (e.g., infill) to reduce the need to drive. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AIR-2a: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines and Municipal Code to require, as part of the City’s development approval process, that future development projects comply with the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of proposed Comprehensive Plan adoption City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA guidelines and Municipal Code. Once AIR-2b: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines to require that, prior to issuance of construction permits, development project City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of proposed City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA guidelines. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8-3, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City. Comprehensive Plan adoption AIR-2c: To ensure that development projects that have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria air pollutants listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce regional air pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed Plan shall include policies that require compliance with BAAQMD requirements, including BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b. In addition, to reduce long-term air quality impacts by emphasizing walkable neighborhoods and supporting alternative modes of Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency transportation, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections between commercial and mixed-use centers. AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution. AIR-3a: The City of Palo Alto shall update its CEQA Procedures to require that future non-residential projects within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel- powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended for implementation by the BAAQMD. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to:  Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.  Electrifying warehousing docks.  Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of Plan adoption City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA Procedures. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency  Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes. Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. AIR-3b: To ensure that new industrial and warehousing projects with the potential to generate new stationary and mobile sources of air toxics that exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, amend the City’s CEQA guidelines to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-3c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. Policies shall also require that new sensitive land use projects (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, parks or playgrounds, and day care centers) within 1,000 feet of a major stationary source of TACs and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicles per day consider potential health risks and incorporate adequate precautions, such as high-efficiency air filtration, into project design. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan could create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors unless policies are AIR-4: To reduce odor impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies requiring:  Buffers, mechanical, and other mitigation methods to avoid creating a nuisance. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies and programs in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 7 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency integrated into the proposed Plan. Cultural Resources CULT-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. CULT-1: To ensure the protection of potentially historic resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Process for reviewing proposed demolition or alteration of potentially historic buildings.  Protection of archaeological resources. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. See Mitigation Measure CULT-1. CULT-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause damage to an important archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. CULT-3: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. In addition, to ensure that future development would not damage archaeological resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects.  Developer compliance with applicable regulations regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits, and unique geologic features.  Appropriate tribal consultation and consideration of tribal concerns. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique CULT-5: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-3. See Mitigation Measure CULT-3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 8 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency geologic feature. CULT-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources. CULT-7: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3. See Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change GHG-3: The proposed Plan would expose people or structures to the physical effects of climate change, including but not limited to flooding, extreme temperatures, public health, wildfire risk, or other impacts resulting from climate change, requiring mitigation. GHG-3: To address the potential impacts associated with exposing people to the effects of climate change, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Monitoring and response to flooding risks caused by climate change-related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges.  Cooperative planning with federal, State, regional, and local public agencies on issues related to climate change (including sea level rise and extreme storms).  Preparation of response strategies to address sea level rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events, and other events related to climate change.  Implementation of adaptive strategies to address impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 9 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-2: The proposed Plan could substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. HYD-2: To reduce potential impacts associated with construction dewatering the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Avoidance of the impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on the natural environment and safety.  Conservation of subsurface water resources.  Construction techniques and recharge strategies to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts.  Monitoring of dewatering and excavation projects.  Cooperation with other jurisdictions and regional agencies to protect groundwater.  Protection of groundwater as a natural resource. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments Land Use and Planning LAND-1: The proposed Plan could adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area. LAND-1: To ensure that the intensity of future development would not adversely change the land use patterns or affect the livability of Palo Alto neighborhoods, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Strengthening of residential neighborhoods.  Vitality of commercial areas and public facilities.  High-quality building and site design.  Architectural compatibility of new development.  Compatible infill development.  Avoidance of abrupt changes in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments LAND-2: The proposed Plan would allow development that could be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of LAND-2: Implement Mitigation Measure LAND-1. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts to visual character and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency the surrounding area, including density and building height.  Use of City procedures, plans, and requirements to ensure high-quality building design and architectural compatibility. LAND-5: The proposed Plan could physically divide an established community. LAND-5: To avoid potential impacts from physically dividing an established community, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Enhanced connections to and from parks, schools, and community facilities for all users.  Safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between residential areas and commercial centers.  Cooperation with other agencies to improve circulation connections.  Grade separation of rail crossings. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments Noise NOISE-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB. NOISE-1a: To ensure that average 24-hour noise levels associated with long-term operational noise would not increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments.  Use of the guidelines in the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” table in the proposed Plan to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments.  Clear guidelines for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas.  Adherence to the interior noise requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25).  Inclusion of a noise contour map in the proposed Plan. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 11 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency  Reduction of noise impacts of development on adjacent properties.  Evaluation of noise impacts on existing residential, open space, and conservation land.  Requirement for new projects in the Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. NOISE-1b: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from aircraft noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Compliance with the airport-related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments.  Prohibition of incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport, as established in the adopted County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-1c: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from railway noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Minimization of noise spillover from rail-related activities into adjacent residential or noise- sensitive areas.  Building design that reduces impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations.  Guidelines for interior noise levels. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 12 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB. NOISE-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause an increase of 3 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. NOISE-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. NOISE-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a. See Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a. NOISE-4b: The Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan shall be maintained. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. NOISE-5a: To ensure that future development would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies that limit the hours of construction around sensitive receptors, and require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting throughout the construction process for larger development projects, as well as the use of pertinent industry standards and City guidelines to avoid significant vibration impacts during construction or operations. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-5b: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. See Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. NOISE-6: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of established State standards. NOISE-6: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 13 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency NOISE-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. NOISE-7: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b. NOISE-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan could result in a potentially substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. NOISE-8: To ensure that future development would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors from construction noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Construction noise limits around sensitive receptors.  Monitoring and reporting plans for construction noise levels of larger development projects.  Noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-11: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, may result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise. NOISE-11a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE- 1c. See Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. NOISE-11b: To address overall community noise impacts from train noise to the extent such noise is within the City’s control and in excess of established State and/or City standards, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Efforts to develop and implement technological methods to reduce train whistle noise from Caltrain. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 14 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency  Evaluation of at-grade rail crossings as potential Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines.  Grade separation of rail crossings as a City priority. Public Services and Recreation PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards. PS-7: To address the potential physical impacts of park construction/improvement, the Comprehensive Plan Update shall include policies that achieve the following:  Evaluation and mitigation of the construction impacts associated with park and recreational facility creation and expansion. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in substantial cumulative adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities, need for new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7. See Mitigation Measure PS-7. Transportation and Traffic TRANS-1: Implementation of TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to City of Palo Alto Within six City of Palo Alto Confirm program adoption. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 15 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. reducing motor vehicle traffic, with the goal of achieving no net increase in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from new development, with an exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground- floor retail and below-market-rate housing). The program should, at a minimum, require new development projects above a specific size threshold to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and size. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated.  45 percent reduction in the Downtown district  35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area  30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park  30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor  20 percent reduction in other areas of the city TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner or the project proponent on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue if targets are not met and may achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control. PCE Department, Transportation Division (responsible for program adoption) months of proposed Comprehensive Plan adoption PCE Department Project applicants (responsible for TDM plans) Prepare TDM Plan, if required, prior to issuance of occupancy permits. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Property owner or project proponent Review and approve TDM Plans. Monitor enforcement of TDM Plans consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.34.040(d)(4) Once Annually TRANS-1b: Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak-hour City of Palo Alto PCE Department Ongoing City of Palo Alto PCE Department Verify collection of fees. Ongoing COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 16 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle traffic congestion. TRANS-1c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to ensure collaboration with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, and identification and pursuit of funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. Policies shall support grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority, and the undertaking of studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-1d: Consistent with State requirements, the City shall adopt a Multimodal Improvement Plan to address impacts to Congestion Management Program facilities. In addition, the proposed Plan shall include policies to engage in regional transportation planning and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue-jump lanes and curbside platforms, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and additional VTA bus service. City of Palo Alto PCE Department, Transportation Division (responsible for Multimodal Improvement Plan) See “Monitoring Action” notes regarding Multimodal Improvement Plans. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Three CMP intersections would be affected by this impact. Intersection #8 (El Camino Real at San Antonio Road) is located in Mountain View and Los Altos. The City of Mountain View is currently drafting a Multimodal Improvement Plan that includes this intersection. The City of Palo Alto shall participate in development of this Multimodal Improvement Plan. The other two intersections will not require Multimodal Improvement Plans. Intersection #9 (Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard at Page Mill Road) is grandfathered in with an automobile LOS of F and is therefore exempt from meeting the CMP standard. For Intersection #10 (Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road), the City shall make a fair share Ongoing COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 17 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency contribution toward a full grade separation project. With the construction of the grade- separation project, this intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service, and no longer require the development of a Multimodal Improvement Plan. The City shall monitor the progress of the grade separation project and confirm with the County and VTA that no Multimodal Improvement Plan is required following its completion. Policy implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-1e: The proposed Plan shall include policies to encourage the PAUSD to analyze decisions regarding school assignments to reduce peak-period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Ongoing, as part of regular collaboration and communication with the Palo Alto Unified School District City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm communication. Ongoing TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. TRANS-3a: The City shall require new development projects to prepare and implement TDM programs, as described in TRANS-1a. TDM programs for worksites may include measures such as private bus services and free shuttle services to transit stations geared towards commuters. See Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 18 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency TRANS-3b: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies that advocate for efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing freeway facilities consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. Policies shall support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring, and control systems that provide non-intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. Policies shall support, where appropriate, the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. TRANS-6: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies collaborate with transit agencies in planning for and implementing convenient, efficient, coordinated, and effective bus service. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-8: Implementation of the project would create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets. TRANS-8: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-9: Implementation of the project would create an operational safety hazard. TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. See Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. Utilities and Service Systems UTIL-15: Without the adoption of policies to promote recycling and conservation, the proposed UTIL-15: To ensure that future development would comply with applicable solid waste regulations, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 19 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Plan could potentially fall out of compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.  Ninety-five percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste.  Reduced solid waste generation.  Use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, through enforcement of the 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion.  Enhanced recycling and composting programs for all waste generators. UTIL-17: The proposed Plan would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities. However, without the adoption of policies in support of energy efficiency and conservation, the proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation. UTIL-17: To ensure that future development would maximize energy efficiency and conservation the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:  Maximized conservation and efficient use of energy.  Continued procurement of carbon-neutral energy.  Investment in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs.  Provision of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency.  Use of cost-effective energy conservation measures in City projects and practices.  Adherence to State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies.  Consideration of a transition to a carbon-neutral natural gas supply. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments